TEXTS  AND  STUDIES  OF  THE  JEWISH 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF'  AMERICA,  VOL.  I 


GEONICA 


BY 


LOUIS  GINZBERG 


The  Library 
University  of  California, 


GEONICA 


OXFORD  :     HORACE    HART 
PRINTER  TO   THE    UNIVERSITY 


TEXTS  AND  STUDIES  OF  THE  JEWISH 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  AMERICA,  VOL.  I 

GEONICA 

BY 

LOUIS  GINZBERG 


I 

THE  GEONIM  AND  THEIR 
HALAKIC  WRITINGS 


NEW  YORK 

THE  JEWISH  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  AMERICA 

1909 


£>M 


TO    THE    MEMORY    OF 

ISAAC   LEESEK 

FOUNDER  OF    THE    FIRST    AMERICAN    COLLEGE 

FOR    HIGHER    JEWISH     LEARNING    THIS    FIRST 

PUBLICATION    OF    THE    JEWISH    THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY    OF    AMERICA    IS    DEDICATED 


1252856 


PREFACE 

THE  centuries  between  the  final  redaction  of  the 
Talmud  and  the  beginning  of  Jewish  culture  in  • 
the  West  is  one  of  the  most  obscure  periods  in  the 
history  of  the  Jews  of  post-Biblical  times.  If  we 
regard  the  literary  productiveness  of  a  people  as 
the  only  standard  by  which  to  measure  its  culture, 
then  we  must  confess  that /this  was  a  period  of 
decline ;  the  Geonic  epoch  has  not  brought  forth 
one  monumental  work.  Yet,  a  period  which  has 
produced  such  powerful  religious  movements  as 
Karaism  and  mysticism,  and  has  for  the  first  time 
made  a  serious  attempt  to/  harmonize  Hellenism 
with  Talmudic  Judaism  cannot  be  considered  as 
stagnant.  The  first  step  towards  a  correct  under- 
standing of  this  period  must  be  a  clear  comprehension 
of  the  institution  which  gave  it  its  name :  "  the 
Gaonate."  With  the  exception  of  K.  Saadia,/who 
flourished  toward  the  end  of  this  period,  we  meet 
with  no  name  of  the  first  magnitude.  But,  the  less 
important  the  Geonim  were  in  themselves,  the 
more  important  must  have  been  the  Gaonate  to  be 
able  to  impress  its  stamp  upon  several  centuries. 
The  fundamental  question  which  we  have  to  answer 
before  we  proceed  to  form  an  estimate  of  this  period 
is :  Were  the  Geonim  only  heads  of  Academies,  or 
were  they  representatives  of  authoritative  bodies  ? 

The  first  volume  of  this  book  presents  some 
material  towards  the  solution  of  this  question. 
Granted  that  we  will  never  be  able  to  form  an 
adequate  picture  of  the  activity  of  the  Geonim,  for 
the  contemporary  sources  are  too  meagre  for  this 
purpose,  yet  I  hope  to  have  shown  that/the  Gaon 
was  more  than  the  president  of  a  scholastic  institu- 
tion. The  results  of  my  studies  are  mostly  directed 


Vlll  PREFACE 

against  the  conception  of  the  Gaonate  as  formulated 
by  Isaac  Halevy  in  the  third  volume  of  his  Dorot 
harJRishonim  (Pressburg,  1898),  according  to  whom 
the  Academies  were  only  Talmud-schools,  and  the 
Geonim  Talmud  teachers.  In  spite  of  all  his  Kab- 
binic  erudition  and  extraordinary  critical  acumen 
Halevy  has  contributed  but  little  towards  the  under- 
standing of  the  Gaonate.  His  bitter  attacks  upon 
men  like  Kapoport,  Frankel,  Weiss,  Graetz,  and 
other  Jewish  scholars  are  but  poor  compensation 
for  the  lack  of  positive  results. 

In  accordance  with  my  conception  of  the  Gaonate 
as  an  authoritative  body,  I  have,  in  dealing  with 
the  literary  activity  of  the  Geonim,  confined  myself 
to  their  HalaHc  writings,  since  it  is  only  in  the 
Halakah  thaj/the  authority  of  the  Geonim  found 
its  full  expression.  In  the  chapter,  "The  Halakic 
Literature  of  the  Geonim"  (pp.  72-205),  I  have 
given  a  survey  of  the  literary  activity  of  the  Geonim 
along  the  different  departments  of  the  Halakah: 
Codification,  Talmud  exegesis,  Eesponsa,  and  Liturgy. 
I  hope  that  my  investigation  about  the  Seder  E. 
Amram  (pp.  119-54)  will  interest  even  those  to 
whom  the  Halakah  is  either  a  terra  incognita  or  a 
noli  me  tangere.  Upon  no  other  department  was 
the  activity  of  the  Geonim  so  decisive  and  im- 
portant as  upon  the  Liturgy,  yet  even  this  branch 
of  research  remained  uncultivated. 

Conscious  of  the  fact  that  in  many  respects  I 
have  chosen  a  way  which  not  all  will  be  ready  to 
follow,  I  only  claim  credit  for  having  undertaken 
anew  the  examination  of  some  important  questions 
relating  to  the  history  of  the  Geonim,  which  may 
lead  others  to  study  this  very  obscure  period  of 
Jewish  history. 

A  considerable  part  of  the  material  utilised  in  my 
representation  of  the  history  and  literature  of  the 
Geonim  is  taken  from  the  Genizah.  There  is  no 


PREFACE  IX 

exaggeration  in  maintaining  that  the  discovery  of 
the  Genizah  by  Prof.  Solomon  Schechter  was  in 
no  other  department  of  Jewish  learning  so  epoch- 
making  as  in  the  history  of  the  Geonim.  Prof. 
Schechter's  Saadyana  (Cambridge,  1903)  is  a  fair 
specimen  of  what  we  may  expect  from  the  Genizah 
for  the  understanding  of  the  Geonic  period.  Indeed 
it  is  a  veritable  treasure  trove  for  the  history  of 
this  period.  New  Halakic  material,  however,  has 
not  been  brought  forth  from  the  Genizah  till  now, 
and  yet  no  one  will  doubt,  except  those  who  are 
given  over  to  philological  trifles  or  theological 
sophisms  that  it  is  the  Halakah  alone  which  gives 
us  a  true  mirror  of  that  time.  Especially  is  this 
the  case  with  the  Responsa  which  deal  with  life 
in  all  its  aspects.  They  enable  us  to  penetrate 
into  the  study  of  the  scholar  as  well  as  into  the 
home  of  the  everyday  man. 

The  second  volume  consists  of  Halakic  Frag- 
ments from  the  Genizah  now  stored  in  the  Taylor- 
Schechter  collection  in  the  Cambridge  University 
Library,  and  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford l.  The  first 
thirty-eight  fragments  are  Geonic  Responsa 2,  which 
hitherto  were  entirely  unknown,  or  which  differ 
in  some  way  from  the  form  in  which  they  have 
been  known.  I  have  disregarded  such  Geonic 
Responsa  from  the  Genizah  as  are  identical  with 
those  previously  printed  as  well  as  those  which  are 
written  in  Arabic.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
very  badly  damaged  fragments,  this  book  contains 
nearly  all  the  Geonic  Responsa  from  the  Genizah 
in  the  above-mentioned  libraries. 

The  Fragments  coming  from  the  Bodleian  were 
copied  by  myself,  and  I  can  therefore  confidently 


1  Comp.  Index  s.v.  Mjw'n'u  and  froayv—'vtrc.  Pages  1-165  were  first 
published  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  XVI-XX. 

*  Frag.  XXXIV  is  a  part  of  R.  Nissim's  Mafleah,  which  I  have  incor- 
porated in  this  book,  as  the  Mafteah  is  mainly  based  on  Geouic  Responsa. 


X  PREFACE 

vouch  for  their  correctness  in  reproducing  the 
original.  For  the  copies  of  the  Cambridge  Frag- 
ments I  am  indebted  to  Ernest  Worman,  M.A., 
Cambridge. 

The   Fragments   reproduced  here  line  for  line, 
page  for  page,  are  preceded  by  short  introductions 
describing  the  manuscripts  and  the  nature  of  their 
varying  contents.     I  have  made  it  a  point  to  call 
the  reader's  attention  to  certain  interesting  Halakic 
views  expressed  in  the  Fragments.     I  was  brought 
up  in  surroundings  where  the  understanding  of  the 
Halakah  was  the  chief  subject  of  Jewish  learning, 
and  even   now  I  cannot  free  myself  of  the   view 
that  the  Halakah  ought   to  be  no  less  important 
than  the  correct  spelling  of  an  Aramaic  preposition. 
The  Appendix   to   the   second   volume   contains 
nine  Fragments  (XXXIX-XLVII)   of  the   She&tot 
and  Halakot  Gedolot.     The  importance  of  these  Frag- 
ments in  the  study  of  the  early  Geonic  literature 
is  fully  dealt  with  in  the  first  volume  (pp.  91-3, 
108-9),  and  also  in  the  introductory  note  (pp.  349- 
52)  preceding  them. 

To  facilitate  the  use  of  the  Fragments  I  have 
added  two  Indices.  The  first,  arranged  according 
to  the  Slmlhan  *Aruk,  gives  the  subject  of  the 
Kesponsa;  those  containing  explanations  of  Tal- 
mudical  passages  are  indexed  at  the  end  of  this  in 
accordance  with  the  order  of  the  Talmudical  treatises. 
The  second  index  is  alphabetical,  and  deals  with 
the  historical  or  philological  matter  found  either  in 
the  text  of  the  Fragments  or  in  the  notes  and 
introductions  accompanying  them. 

I  desire  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  the 
authorities  of  the  Cambridge  University  and  Bodleian 
Libraries  for  courtesies  shown  me  in  connexion  with 
the  present  work. 


CONTENTS 

THE  GEONIM 
I.— THE  GAONATE. 

PAGE 

Palestine  and  Babylonia i 

Salient  Features  of  the  Gaonate 6 

Friction  between  the  Exilarchate  and  the  Gaonate  of 

Pumbedita 14 

The  Language  of  Nathan  ha- Babli's  Report  ....  22 

Nathan  ha-Babli  Identified 29 

Nathan  ha-Babli  the  Source  for  the  Two  Reports  about  the 

Babylonian  Academies 34 

The  Supremacy  of  Sura 37 

The  Title  Gaon  originally  the  Prerogative  of  Sura  ...  46 

The  Origin  of  the  Gaonate  under  the  Mohammedan  Rulers  .  52 

Nathan  ha- Babli's  Account  of  Ukba  .  .  .  .  55 
The  Last  Conflict  between  the  Exilarchate  and  the  Pumbedita 

Gaonate 62 

The  Predecessor  of  Saadia 66 

The  Chronology  of  the  Geonim 69 

II.— THE  HALAKIC  LITERATURE  OF 
THE  GEONIM. 

Halakah  the  Main  Feature  of  Geonic  Literature      ...  72 

The  Impulse  to  Geonic  Literary  Activity 73 

Rabbi  Aha  of  Shabha 75 

The  SheSltot  and  the  Yenishalmi 78 

Plan  and  Purpose  of  the  SheSltot 86 

Rabbi  Jehudai  the  Earliest  Halakic  Writer  in  Geonic  Times  .  95 

Conflicting  Traditions  about  the  Author  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot  99 

Jehudai  Gaon  Author  of  the  Original  Halakot  Gedolot      .        .  103 

Later  Amplifications  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot     .        .        .         .  108 

Plan  and  Purpose  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot 1 1 1 

Codification  not  Favoured 117 

Prayers  First  Put  in  Writing 119 

The  Liturgical  Part  of  the  Seder  Bab  Amram    .        .        .        .  123 


XU  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

The  Halakic  Part  of  the  Seder  Bab  Amram  .  .  .  .  144 

Relation  of  the  Manuscripts  to  the  Printed  Text  .  .  .  151 
Spurious  Works  attributed  to  the  Geonim  Nahshon  and  hia 

Son  Hai 154 

Works  attributed  to  the  Geonim  Zemah,  Hai  ben  David, 

and  Hilai 159 

The  Importance  of  Rabbi  Saadia  in  Halakic  Literature  .  .  162 

The  Three  Great  Successors  of  Rabbi  Saadia  .  .  .  .  167 

Anonymous  Codes  of  the  Geonic  Time 177 

Origin  of  the  Responsa  Collections 182 

The  Importance  of  the  Geonic  Responsa 200 

LIST  OF  ABBKEVIATIONS  OF  TITLES  OF  BOOKS   .  206 

ADDITIONS         .......       .       .  207 


1. 

THE  GAONATE. 

PALESTINE  AND  BABYLONIA. 

"'THE  staff  shall  not  depart  from  Judah' — the  Exil- 
archs  who  govern  the  people  with  the  ruler's  rod  ;  '  nor 
a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet' — the  descendants  of 
Hillel  who  instruct  the  people  in  the  Torah."  This  brief, 
vivid  characterisation  of  the  two  great  Jewish  institu- 
tions of  the  Talmudic  time,  by  a  Jewish  sage  living  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century1,  remained  no  less 
true  in  the  centuries  that  followed.  In  spite  of  friction  / 
now  and  again  between  the  later  Patriarchs  and  the 
intellectual  leaders  of  the  Palestinian  Jews  2,  the  dissension 
never  reached  the  point  of  causing  a  separation  of  the 
Cspiritual  power  from/ the  worldly  power]  in  Palestine. 
Though  the  Patriarchs  were  not  always  the  actual 
presiding  officers  of  the  chief  academy,  de  jure  they  were 
looked  upon,  in  Palestine  and  outside,  as  the  spiritual 
heads  of  the  Jews.  For  instance,  the  last  important 
achievement  that  /  may  be  credited  to  the  account  of  the 
Jewish  scholars  of  Palestine,  the  fixation  of  the  calendar, 
in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  is  closely  connected^/ 
with/the  name  of  the  Patriarch  Hillel  II,  and,  as  late  as 
the  second  half  of  the  same  century,  the  surveillance  of 
religious  conditions  in  [the  Diaspora  still  lay  in  the  hands 
_of  the  Patriarch, Jas  we  may  learn  from  the  account  of 
a  Christian  author  of  the  time.  The  Patriarch  dispatched 

1  Sanhedrin,  5  a  ;  this  anonymous  Baraita  must  have  originated  in  the 
time  of  the  Patriarch  Rabbi  Judah  I  ;  the  earlier  Tannaim  make  no  sort 
of  mention  of  the  Babylonian  Exilarchs. 

*  Comp.,  for  example,  Yer.  Sanhedrin,  beg.  of  second  chapter. 
I  B 


2  THE    GEONIM 

messengers,  "apostles,"  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  col- 
lecting moneys,  but/ also,  in  the  words  of  Epiphanius1, 
"  to  maintain  the  observance  of  the  law,  and  dismiss 
unfit  archisynagogues,  priests,  presbyters,  and  ministers." 
In /Babylonia  conditions  were  vastly  different.  From 
the  earliest  time  there  had  prevailed  a  sharply  marked 
JNdualismJ  The  Exilarchate,  which/  could  count  upon  the 
support  of  the  non-Jewish  government,  was  a  political 
power  and  nothing  more.  It  permitted  no  interference 
in  its  province,  either  from  within  or  from  without2. 
Beginning  with  the  early  years  of  the  third  century,  the 
scholar's  estate  developed  more  and  more  into  an  essential 
element  in  the  life  of  the  Babylonian  Jews,  though  it 
lacked  a  unified  expression  of  its  authority.  There  were, 
indeed,  the  Academies,  especially  the  two  great  central 


1  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Haer.,  XX,  4  and  n,  on  the  Jewish  apostles.  For 
details,  comp.  Harnack,  Die  Mission  und  Ausbreiiung  des  Christenthums, 
237-40  ;  Krauss,  J.  Q.  R.,  XVII,  370-83  ;  and  Vogelstein,  Monatsschrift,  IXL, 
427  et  seq.  Apparently  the  Babylonian  Geonim  followed  this  example 
and  sent  out  apostles.  Rabbi  Nehemiah  Gaon  speaks,  in  his  letter  dated 
962,  of  mbnpn  btf  nrnno  rrus  i:bn>  TpDn  munn  jpin  rrobtn  1*0  i:Tp'  T  by  i:nVro  n:m 
(J.Q.R.,  XIX,  106).  Likewise  Rabbi  Samuel  Ibn  Hofni  speaks  of 
nrpBi  ru'c'n  po  in  one  of  his  letters  (J.  Q.  R.,  XIV,  308).  This  expression 
conveys  the  notion  that  the  office  of  TpD  was  an  old  institution.  In  the 
year  750,  we  find  Abi  'Ali  Hassan,  of  Bagdad,  as  "the  head  of  the 
congregation ''  of  Fostat  (J.  Q.  R.,  XVII,  428).  The  idea  suggests  itself 
that  he  was  sent  upon  a  mission  by  the  Babylonian  authorities.  In 
another  Genizah  fragment,  J.Q.R.,  XIX,  740,  ir^n  Dioy  'n,  "the  apostle 
Eabbi  Amram  "  is  mentioned,  who,  however,  seems  to  have  been  deputed 
by  the  Palestinian  Geonim.  On  the  other  hand,  Rabbi  Eleazar  Alluf, 
in  Babylonia  in  850,  who  gave  the  Geonim  information  about  Spain,  ' 
was  not  a  returned  emissary  of  the  Geonim,  but  a  native  Spaniard,  as  we 
learn  from  the  description  of  him  in  Harkavy,  201,  and  Schechter, 
Saadyana,  76:  I:WD^I«  pi  ^rac*  n  no  -a  rpto  niyto  an  no  «3n  mrr  nai.  He 
went  to  Babylonia,  and  probably  took  up  his  residence  there,  for  we  find 
him  there  in  875  (Harkavy,  I.e.).  The  custom  of  the  Academies,  discussed 
in  G.  S.,  p.  302,  of  disposing  in  the  month  of  Adar  of  the  questions 
submitted  to  them  from  all  parts  is  probably  connected  with  the  dis- 
patching of  the  messengers,  as  the  Patriarchs  also  sent  their  apostles  out 
in  this  month,  according  to  Krauss's  correct  observation  (1.  c.,  374,  note  4). 

a  Sanhedrin,  5  a  ;  Yer.  Baba  Eathra,  V,  end  ;  and  elsewhere. 


THE    GAONATE  3 

bodies  at  Sura  and  Pumbedita,  but  they  wanted  the  means  / 
of  making  effective  powers  of  themselves.  The  Academy 
in  Palestine,  situated  in  the  town  in  which/the  Patriarch 
resided,  was  the  highest  (court  of  justic^  no  matter  who 
and  what  the  president  might  be  at  a  given  time,  thus 
in  a  measure  representing  the  old  Synhedrion l.  In  / 
Babylonia,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Qmportance  of  an 
Academy!  depended  upon /the  learning  of  the  presiding 
chief.  So  long  as  Rab  Huna  and  Rab  Hisda  were  con- 
nected with  the  Academy  at  Sura,  it  was  in  the  lead,  and 
Pumbedita  was  pre-eminent  when/  it  could  boast  of  a 
R-abbah,  a  Rab  Joseph,  and  other  scholars  of  equal  note. 
Yet,  however  brilliant  the  respective  representatives  otfthe 
Academies  might  be,  neither  of  them  could  lay  claim  to 
exclusive  authority.  For  instance,  when  the  Academy  at 
Sura,  under  the  leadership  of  Rab  Huna,  was  enjoying  its 
palmiest  days,  many  a  scholar,  like  Rab  Nahman  and  Rab 
Anan,  refused  to  subordinate  himself  to  its  rulings  2.  / 

This  was  exactly  as  it  should  have  been.  The  truth  of 
the  popular  saying,  £  Knowledge  is  power/Jjhas  been  verified 
abundantly  in/the  course  of  Jewish  history.  Since  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  State,  it  has  been  Jewish  know- 
ledge that/has  always  kept  the  Jews  together,  though  they 
were  scattered  over  all  the  continents.  But  to  be  a  power, 
intellectualism  must  clothe  itself  in  a  concrete  form/and 
for  this  there  was  no  provision  in  the  Babylonian  Academies, 

1  SanJiedrin,  31  b,  where  irirr  nu  is  not,  as  Rashi  holds,  some  place  or 
other  at  which  scholars  foregathered,  but  the  Academy  over  which  the 
Patriarch  presided,  as  may  be  seen  plainly  from  Yer.  Berakot,  IV,  7  d,  and 
Yer.  Sanhedrin,  II,  beg. 

a  Comp.  Kelulot,  693,  where  Rab  Anan  addresses  the  head  of  the 
Sura  Academy  as  jnan  win,  which  evokes  many  an  unpleasant  i-emark. 
Rab  Nahman  also  speaks  of  pin  N:in,  and,  as  Rabbi  Sherira,  in  his 
Letter,  32,  13,  observes  with  fine  insight,  Rab  Nahman  did  not  acknow- 
ledge the  head  of  Sura  as  an  authority  superior  to  himself.  Also  the 
passage  Kiddushin,  70  a,  throws  light  upon  the  relation  subsisting  between 
Rab  Nahman  and  Rab  Huna.  He  did  not  consult  with  the  latter 
when  he  cited  Rab  Judah,  the  chief  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy,  before 
the  court. 

£  2 


4  THE    GEONIM 

as /long  as  they  were  purely  (spiritual  centresjdestitute  of 
every  vestige  of  temporal  authority. 

Keeping  this  state  of  affairs  in  mind,  we  cannot  find  it 
surprising  thai/ the  Babylonian  Academies  were  not  yet 
able  to  take  the  place,  as  they  afterwards  did,  of  those 
in  Palestine,  when  the  latter  entered  upon  a  period  of 
rapid  decline,  beginning  with  the  dominance  of  the^religion 
of  lovejthe  adherents  of  which  extirpated  the  Jewish 
culture  o^the  Holy  Land  with  fire  and  sword1. 

The  importance  of  the  Babylonian  Academies  dates 
from /the  so-called  Geonic  time.  To  be  accurate,  it  is 
about/the  end  of  the  seventh  century  that  they  begin  to 
appear  as  the  paramount  (power  of  the  whole  of  the 

1  In  the  Geonic  time,  the  superiority  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  was 
acknowledged  even  in  Palestine,  in  connexion  with  which  the  Responsum 
reproduced  in  G.  8.,  pp.  50-3,  is  of  interest.  Its  author  was  a  Palestinian 
scholar  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighth  century,  who,  in  his  discussions, 
refers  only  to  the  Babylonian  Talmud  and  the  Gaon  Rabbi  JehudaL 
Also  in  the  Ben-Mei'r  controversy  the  Palestinians  appeal  to  the  Babylonian 
and  not  the  Jerusalem  Talmud.  Rabbi  Paltoi,  y*e,  63  b,  40,  expressed 
himself  very  harshly  concerning  certain  Palestinian  customs  :  p2'H  avra 
NDbw  DJTTO  Dico  nb  mrni  rv'yi  'in«p  an  -im  NITD  py«  prim.  His  words 
give  poignant  expression  to  the  decay  of  Palestinian  supremacy  in 
Babylonia.  The  last  demonstrable  case  of  Babylonians  applying  to 
Palestinians  for  a  decision  is  that  mentioned  in  Hullin,  59  b,  for  the 
Rab  Samuel  ben  Abbahu  of  this  passage  is  the  Sabora  of  that  name, 
who,  according  to  Rabbi  Sherira's  statement,  Letter,  34,  18,  died  in  505. 
Neubauer's  text  has  the  incorrect  reading  rrnrr  11  instead  of  iron  %  as 
Wallerstein  has  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Neubauer's  reading  in  the  previous 
line,  'NOIIT:,  is  preferable  to  nairn,  as  appears  from  MSS.  M  and  O  of 
'Enibin,  na,  which  have  tiiro,  while  in  the  parallel  passage,  Menahot, 
33  b,  MS.  M  also  reads  iDim — a  corroboration  of  Rabbi  Sherira's  statement 
that  the  name  has  been  transmitted  in  two  forms,  <nin;  and  'nirn .  Halevy 
remarks,  in  Dorot  ha-Rish.,  Ill,  13,  that  Rabbi  Sherira  was  so  exact  as  to 
record  so  insignificant  a  variant  as  'Nairn  and  'mm!  Nor  can  Halevy 
be  endorsed  in  what  he  says  (p.  7)  about  the  colleague  of  Rabbi  'oirn, 
'DV  NON,  whose  name  he  changes  into  FJDV  'i.  The  Responsum  given 
in  G.  S.,  p.  53,  confirms  the  reading  'cv  NI«.  This  unusual  name  was 
corrupted  into  »DV  '~\  and  ncv  'i,  which  were  more  familiar  forms  to 
the  copyists.  Comp.  Rabbi  Aaron  of  Lunel,  D"n  'IN  ,  II,  194,  who  reads  : 
Fpv  m . . .  jon:  '~\,  in  Menahot,  1.  c.,  the  first  undoubtedly  corrupted  from 
»on:  =  'Din:,  and  additions  to  G.  S.,  p.  49. 


THE    GAONATE  5 

Jewish  Diaspora^  and  at  the  same  time  as  a  properly 
organised  institution  with  well-defined  rights  and  claims. 

A  homilist  of  the  Geonic  period  gives  a  telling  descrip- 
tion of  the  importance  of  the  two  Academies,  the  one  at 
Sura  and  the  one  at  Purnbedita1.  "  God  made  a  covenant 
with  Israel,"  he  says,  "  that  the  Oral  Law  shall  never 
depart  from  his  mouth  until  the  end  of  all  generations, 
and  therefore  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  established 
these  two  Yeshibot,  that  the  Torah  may  be  studied  in 
them  day  and  night.  .  .  .  These  two  Yeshibot  have  had 
no  captivity  to  endure,  and/  no  religious  persecution. 
Neither  Javan  (Greece)  nor  Edom  (Rome)  has  had  power 
over  them.  Twelve  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem [under  Nebuchadnezzar],  God  sent  the  great  masters 
of  the  Torah  into  exile,  with  Jeconiah,  to  Babylon,  where 
the  knowledge  of  the  Torah  has  been  cherished  without  an 
interruption  until  the  present  day." 

This  great  distinction  of  the  Babylonian  Academies,  of 
having  maintained  the^continuity  of  the  traditionjfrom  the 
Biblical  to  the  Geonic  time,  is  a  subject  frequently  referred 
to  by  the  Geonim  2.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  the  hege- 
mony exercised  by  the  Babylonian  Jews  for  about  four 
centuries  is  due  in  part  to  the  circumstance  that/ at  the 

1  Tanhuma,  Noah.    This  Derashah  is   introduced  with   the  words  rrx 
n:  rrnVin,  which  have  no  sort  of  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  contents. 
The  only  possible  explanation  is  that  this  homily  on  the  importance  of 
the  Academies  does  not  belong  to  the  section  Noah,  but  to  the  following 
one,  -p  i1?,  the  Pentateuch  lesson  read  on  the  Nbam  nnic,  the  Exilarch's 
reception  Sabbath,  on  which  a  sermon  was  delivered  by  the  Geonim, 
or,  to  be  accurate,  by  the  Gaon  of  Sura  (comp.  below,  pp.  45-6  and  94). 
A  favourite  subject  for  this  sermon  was  the  duty  of  supporting  and 
paying  deference  to  the  Academies.     The  Tanhuma  passage  cited  is  one 
of  these  sermons,  one  actually  held  on  the  occasion  mentioned.    In  the 
older  form  of  the  Tanhuma,  its  place  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  lesson 
•jV  -j1?,  the   new  section   being  marked  as  such  in  the  usual  way,  by 
the  closing  words  n:   nnVm  rnx  of  the  previous  section  n:.      In  the 
course  of  the  many  modifications  to  which  the  Ta.n1t.uma  was  subjected, 
the  piece  came  to  stand  in  the  middle  instead  of  the  end  of  the  lesson  n: . 

2  Comp.,  for  instance,  the  anonymous  Responsum  in  pjn,  IV,  73,  which 
here  and  there  agrees  literally  with  the  Derashah  in  Tanhuma. 


6  THE    GEONIM 

time  when /Palestine  ceased  to  be  the  spiritual  centre  of 
the  Jews,  Babylonia,  with  more  justification  than  any 
other  country,  could  boast  of  a  steady  development  of 
Jewish  culture  extending  over  a  period  of  several  centuries. 
But  to  look  upon  the  Gaonate  simply  as  a  direct[continua- 
tion  of/the  activity  of  the  Amoraimjwere  as  unhistorical  as 
to  represent  the  scholars,  the  Q^ODH  **WJ&H,  of  the  Tannaitic 
time  as  another  appellation  for  thefdisciples  of  the  prophets,] 
the  DWaan  »a  of  the  Bible.  It  is  true  the  scholar  had  the 
same  task  to  accomplish  as  the  prophet 1.  Both  were  the 
teachers  and  spiritual  leaders  of  the  people.  But  the  life  of 
the  Jewish  nation  during  the  period  of  the  Second  Temple, 
politically  and  religiously  considered,  differed  so  essentially 
from/ its  life  under  the  Judges  and  the  Kings,  that  the 
respective  leaders  in  the  two  epochs  perforce  show  radical 
differences,  in/spite  of  a  number  of  ideals  held  in  common. 
And  how  far  removed  in  character/Jibe  Geonic  Academies 
were  from/  the  Talmudic  Academiesjwill  appear  in  part 
from  the  points  about  to  be  discussed. 


SALIENT  FEATURES  OF  THE  GAONATE. 

Any  Talmudic  treatise  selected  at  random  will  reveal 
dozens  of  authorities  on  every  folio,  who  were  neither 
presidents  of  Academies  nor  connected  with  the  Academies 
in  any  official  way.  From  the  rise  of  the  schools  in 
Babylonia  under  Rab  until  the  death  of  the  last  Amora, 
Rabina,  scarcely  a  dozen  names  of  heads  of  Academies 
can  be  mustered,  though  the  number  of  Amoraim  runs  up 
to  hundreds.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  examine  the 
Geonic  Responsa  for  a  period  of  about  400  years,  we 
shall  find  that  the  name  of  hardly  a  single  authority  who 

1  The  following  words  of  K.  Saadia  in  Harkavy,  Saadia,  158,  are  very 
interesting  :  "As  the  prophets  led  it  [the  Jewish  nation]  in  their  times, 
so  the  righteous  lead  it  in  their  generations." 


THE    GAONATE  7 

is  not  a  Gaon  has  come  down  to  us  l.     A  phenomenon  that 
speaks  volumes  !     In  the  Talmudic  time  the  Academy  was 

1  Muller,  in  his  Mafleah,  has  recorded  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Nathan, 
whom  he  considers  the  same  as  the  uncle  of  Rabbi  Sherira.  But  of  the 
latter,  Rabbi  Nathan  Alluf,  we  have  no  Responsa.  The  former,  as  will 
be  shown  below,  p.  31,  is  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Hananiah,  of  Kairwan.  We 
also  have  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Dosa,  the  son  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  but  it  must 
be  remembered  that  the  Sura  Gaonate  is  to  be  considered  extinct  after 
the  death  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  barring  only  the  brief  period  of  Rabbi  Samuel 
ben  Hofni's  activity.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  Rabbi  Dosa,  the 
worthy  son  of  his  great  father,  should  be  considered  the  representative 
of  the  scholars  of  Sura,  and  as  such  should  be  addressed  for  decisions. 
The  Rabbi  Hezekiah  ben  Samuel,  "the  grandson  of  Rabbi  Paltoi,"  men- 
tioned in  G.  S.,  p.  59,  is  doubtless  identical  with  the  writer  of  the  letter, 
dated  953,  which  was  published  in  the  J.  Q.R.,  XVIII,  401-3,  and  is  not 
the  grandson,  but  the  great-grandson  of  Rabbi  Paltoi,  as  was  surmised 
by  the  present  writer,  before  the  publication  of  the  fragment  containing 
the  letter,  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  225,  which  now  establishes  the  true  relation- 
ship. Whether  this  Rabbi  Hezekiah  wrote  Responsa  is  questionable. 
However,  as  the  words  rmite  rtn:^,  in  G.  S.,  p.  59,  would  seem  to  indicate, 
he  sent  his  essays  on  certain  Talmud  passages  unsolicited  to  Rabbi 
Bahlul  ben  Joseph.  But  even  if  questions  had  been  addressed  to  him, 
this  would  not  have  disproved  my  opinion ;  it  was  to  be  expected 
in  the  condition  of  the  Academies  at  his  time.  Sura  had  no  Gaon,  and 
Pumbedita  was  divided  between  two  factions,  the  adherents  of  Rabbi 
Aaron  and  those  of  Rabbi  Nehemiah.  The  congregations  that  desired 
to  keep  aloof  from  the  dispute  had  no  choice  but  to  address  their 
questions  to  some  distinguished  scholar  like  Rabbi  Hezekiah.  The  same 
explanation  applies  to  Rabbi  Hofni,  the  father  of  Rabbi  Samuel,  Gaon  of 
Sura,  to  whom  a  Responsum  is  ascribed  in  'Ittur,  I,  3b.  Rabbi  Hofni's 
activity  as  Ab  Bet  Din  (of  Pumbedita?)  coincides  with  the  time  of 
Rabbi  Hezekiah's.  It  is,  however,  very  doubtful  whether  the  passage 
in  the  'Ittur  should  not  read  -:cn  pb  instead  of  ^cn  mb.  Comp.  Harkavy, 
Hofni,  note  2.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  remark  made  by  Rabbi 
Hezekiah,  J.Q.R.,  XVIII,  401,  bottom  ....  c':p  'ana,  refers,  not  to 
questions  addressed  to  his  grandfather,  the  Ab  Bet  Din  Tob,  but  to  a 
friendly  correspondence.  He  speaks  first  of  the  mwxD  submitted  to  the 
Geonim  Rabbi  Paltoi  and  Rabbi  Zemah,  and  then  of  the  'ana  addressed 
to  Rabbi  Tob.  With  regard  to  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Solomon,  the  Ab  Bet 
Din  of  the  Exilarchate  who  wrote  Responsa,  comp.  0.  S.,  p.  303.  Of 
Rabbenu  Hai  we  have  Responsa  dating  from  the  time  when  he  was 
i"lN ;  the  reason  he  was  called  upon  to  write  them  was  because  his 
father,  iu  his  advanced  years,  transferred  some  of  his  duties  to  his  son. 
The  Responsa  bearing  the  name  of  Rabbi  Eleazar  Alluf  were  not  written 
by  him ;  they  are  decisions  of  the  Geonim  transmitted  by  him  to  his 


8  THE    GEONIM 

• 

not  an  institution  vested  with  rights  and  authority,  it  was 
only  a  gathering-place  for  scholars.  But  during  the  Gaonate 
the  Academy  grew  into  a  power,  conferring  dignity  upon 
the  presiding  officer,  and  authority  as  well,  while  the 
influence  of  the  outside  scholar,  who  did  not  represent 
the  Academy,  was  purely  individual,  effectual  only  in 
the  measure  of  his  personality. 

The  point  can  be  proved  by  more  positive  evidence 
than  a  mere  argumentum  ex  silentio.  From  the  remark 
about  to  be  quoted  it  appears  unmistakably  that  it  was 
the  exclusive  right  of  the  Gaon  to  reply  to  the  questions 
addressed  to  the  Academies.  Not  even  the  N^3  B>n,  the 
third  in  rank  1,  enjoyed  the  privilege.  In  a  Responsum, 
probably  from  the  hand  of  Rabbi  Natronai2,  printed  in 
G.  S.,  p.  31,  we  have  the  following:  NB>n  t6n  w^  ana  N^ni 
rvb  mm  t&3  pn  xhx — "  That  he  [Rabbi  Simonai]  did  not 
write  you  regarding  this  question  is  due  to  the  circum- 
stance that  he  was  not  the  head  [of  the  Academy],  but 
only  the  Resh  Kalla3."  Even  in  a  case  like  the  one  dealt 
with  in  the  Responsum  under  consideration,  in  which  the 

countrymen  in  Spain  ;  comp.  D*n,  130,  and  y"c,  26  b,  23.  Rabbi  "  Asaph  " 
(J.  Q.  R.,  IX,  689,  top)  is  not  to  be  emended  to  Joseph  ;  he  is  the  Rabbi 
Asaph  who  was  the  VID  'T  during  the  Gaonate  of  Rabbenu  Hai ;  comp. 
R.&J.,  LV,  50.  His  opinion  was  probably  given  orally  to  Rabbi  Elhanan. 
Notice  that  in  J.Q.R.,  1.  c.,  he  is  called  simply  10,  while  the  authorities 
preceding  and  following  him  bear  the  title  Gaon. 

1  Besides  "the  seven  mto  >tt»o"  (Rabbi  Nathan,  in  his  report,  87,  i6j, 
the  title  of  the  seven  most  prominent  members  of  the  Academy,  there 
must  have   been   also   "  the  xba  rcn,"  who  took  an  active  part  in  the 
instruction  given  at  the  Academy.     It  seems  that  Rabbi  Hai  occupied 
this  office  before  becoming  -\"yn ;  comp.  Saadyana,  118.     I  do  not  know 
whence  Harkavy,  Saadia,  144,  note  7,  derived  his  statement  that  Rabbi 
Hananiah,  the   father  of  R.  Sherira,  became  Gaon  only  after  having 
occupied  the  offices  of  D"T  and  VaN. 

2  Comp.  3*n,  15,  and  'rou.'N,  III,  49. 

3  The  subject  of  3.13  may  possibly  be   Rabbi  Haninah,  so  that  the 
passage  would  read,  "that  he  [Rabbi  Haninah]  did  not  write  it  to  you 
[that  the  Nto  'i  was  of  his  opinion]  is  due  to  the  fact  that,  &c."    In  any 
event,  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  passage  is  that  the  3*1  replied 
to  no  question,  and  even  in  a  case  like  the  one  under  consideration,  the 
Gaon  made  no  mention  of  him. 


THE    GAONATE  9 

testimony  of  the  Resh  Kalla  was  of  importance,  the  Gaon 
does  not  refer  to  him  with  a  single  word.  The  Amoraim 
had  found  it  unbecoming  conduct  in  the  Patriarch  Rabbi 
Simon  ben  Gamaliel  that,  using  the  singular  in  a  formal 
announcement,  he  failed  to  include  his  colleagues  (Sanhedrin , 
na-b).  What  would  they  have  thought  of  the  official 
style  of  their  successors,  the  Geonim  ?  Personal  arrogance, 
it  need  not  be  said,  can  be  charged  neither  against  Rabbi 
Simon  nor  against  the  Geonim.  In  a  college  of  scholars, 
the  presiding  officer  is  primus  inter  pares,  but  the  Patriarch 
in  early  times,  and  later  the  Gaon,  were  the  representatives 
of  an  institution  that  acknowledged  one  head  alone1. 

In  attempting  to  appraise  the  Gaonate,  the  transmission 
of  the  office  from  member  to  member  in  a  limited  number  of 
families,  is  a  most  suggestive  feature2.  During  the  last 
three  centuries  of  the  Geonic  period,  or  what  was  the 
Geonic  period  properly  so  called,  we  have,  for  example,  the 
following  data  concerning  the  Gaonate  of  Pumbedita.  The 
Gaon  Dodai  (761),  brother  of  the  celebrated  Gaon  Jehudai, 
bequeathed  his  office  to  his  son  Rabba,  and  no  less  than 
six  of  Rabba's  descendants  occupied  the  position  after  him 
—  his  grandson  Joseph  ben  Mar  Rabbi  and  his  great- 
grandson  Mattathias  in  one  line,  and  in  another  line  four 
of  his  descendants  belonging  to  successive  generations, 
Judah,  Hananiah,  Sherira,  and  Hai,  the  first  of  them 
representing  the  fourth,  or  perhaps  the  fifth  generation 
removed  from  Rabba  3.  Out  of  a  total  of  277  years,  Dodai 
and  these  descendants  of  his  enumerated  here  occupied  the 
Gaonate  102. 

1  There  are  cases  on  record  which  the  Geonim  decided  in  opposition 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Academies,  see  Nahmanides,  Milhemet,  Kiddushin,  9, 
and  n"j,  82,  226.    The  frequent  references  made  by  the  Geonim  to  the 
customs  of  the  Academies  are  to  be  taken  not  as  marks  of  respect  shown 
to  colleagues  and  disciples,  but  rather  to  the  institution  as  such. 

2  The  data  upon  the  Geonim  families  that  follow,  unless  other  references 
are  given,  are  taken  from  the  Letter  of  Rabbi  Sherira  as  their  sole  source. 

3  Comp.  below,  pp.  70-1,  on  the  de  ree  of  kinship  between  Rabbi  Judah 
and  Rabba. 


10  THE    GEONIM 

Besides  this  prominent  family,  claiming  Davidic  descent, 
there  was  another  family  of  Geonim  of  great  influence, 
the  priestly  family1  to  which  belonged  Rabbi  Abraham 
Kahana  (about  75°))  in  all  probability  the  successor  to 
his  brother  Natronai 2.  Rabbi  Abraham  himself  was  fol- 
lowed first  by  his  son  Hanina  and  his  grandson  Kahana. 
and  then  by  his  other  son  Abumai.  Furthermore,  the 
Geonim  Ahai3,  his  son  Kimvi,  and  his  grandson  Mebasser, 
seem  to  have  been  descendants  of  the  same  Rabbi  Abraham. 

Sherira,  our  only  source,  was  not  interested  in  family 
relations,  except  as  his  own  were  affected,  and  whatever 
information  we  glean  from  him  upon  the  subject  he  gives 
incidentally.  There  is  no  telling,  therefore,  to  what  extent 
the  above  Geonim  families  were  interrelated  among  them- 
selves4, or  how  those  Geonim  who  now  appear  isolated, 
outside  of  the  charmed  circle,  are  really  connected  with  it. 
For  instance,  we  are  not  acquainted  with  Rabbi  Zemah  ben 
Paltoi's  relation  to  the  Geonim  families,  but  Sherira  tells 
us  by  the  way  that  he  gave  his  daughter  in  marriage  to 
Rabbi  Judah  Gaon,  the  grandfather  of  Sherira. 

In  Sura  the  Gaonate  was  in  the  almost  exclusive  pos- 
session of  three  families  for  a  period  of  about  two  centuries. 
The  Geonim  Mari  (777),  Hilai,  Natronai,  Hilai.  Jacob,  and 
Joseph5  (942),  belonged  to  one  family ;  Zadok  (823),  Kimoi, 
Nahshon,  Zemah,  and  Hai  (889),  to  the  second ;  and  the  third 

1  In  connexion  with  this,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Palestinian 
Gaonate  also  was  in  the  hands  of  a  single  priestly  family. 

2  Comp.  below,  pp.  21,  41,  where  arguments  are  given  in  favour  of  this 
conjecture. 

3  Perhaps  Rabbi  Kohen-Zedek  and  his  son  Rabbi  Nehemiah,  Geonim 
of  Pumbedita,  as  well  as  the  grandson  of  the  former,  Rabbi  Samuel  ben 
Hofni,  belong  to  the  same  family  as  Rabbi  Mebasser,  so  that  the  quarrel 
between  the  last  and  Rabbi  Kohen-Zedek,  both  of  whom  are  described 
as  Kohanim,  was  between   two  branches  of  the  same  family.     Rabbi 
Nehemiah  (J.  Q.  R.,  XIX,  105)  seems  to  allude  to  his  origin  from  a  Geonim 
family  in  the  words  i;vneiro  Vrun. 

*  Rabbi  Hezekiah  ben  Samuel  (J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402)  reports  that  he 
was  descended  from  a  Sura  as  well  as  a  Pumbedita  Geonim  family. 
5  In  Harkavy,  Saadia,  228,  he  is  called  D'1:''**;  p  p*o. 


THE    GAONATE  II 

was  the  priestly  family  which  furnished  the  Gaonate  with 
four  incumbents,  Jacob  (801),  Abimi,  Moses1,  and  Kohen- 
Zedek  (845). 

Whatever  view  may  be  held  on  the  subject  of  hereditary 
genius,  it  cannot  be  applied  to  the  case  in  hand.  Among 
the  Geonim  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  was  not  always 
intellectual  force,  but  rather  the  office,  that  was  transmitted 
from  one  member  of  a  family  to  another.  What  explana- 
tion could  otherwise  be  offered  of  the  circumstance  that 
during  the  whole  extent  of  the  Amoraic  period  a  single 
instance  occurs  of  father  and  son,  Rab  Ashi  and  Mar,  being 
presidents  of  an  Academy,  while  the  Gaonate  was  controlled 
by  a  few  families  throughout  its  who^e  history  ?  There  is 
no  intention  of  blinking  the  fact  that  the  claims  of  sons 
upon  the  offices  and  dignities  of  fathers  have  always  received 
somewhat  more  than  due  consideration  among  the  Jews 
since  the  most  ancient  times  2.  But  this  would  still  leave 
the  frequent  succession  of  the  Gaonate  from  brother  to 
brother  unexplained3.  For  instance,  Jacob  and  Abimi, 
brothers,  were  Geonim,  and  so  were  Zadok  and  Kimoi, 
though  the  father  of  neither  pair  had  been  in  office.  It 
remains,  then,  to  explain  the  close  transmission  of  the 
Gaonate  only  by  the  assumption  that  it  came  to  be  looked 
upon  as  the  prescriptive  right  of  certain  influential  families. 
The  same  explanation  would  cover  the  phenomenon  that 
the  Ab  Bet  Din,  the  Resh  Kalla,  and  the  secretary  of  the 
Academy,  so  far  as  we  know  about  them,  also  belonged  to 
the  Geonim  families  mentioned  above  4. 

1  That  Rabbi  Moses  was  a  son  of  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Jacob  is  obvious  from 
the  Genizah  fragment  published  in  G.  S.,  p.  214. 

2  Comp.  Sifra,  Afiare,  83  b,  ed.  Weiss,  and  Midrash  Tannaim,  ed.  Hoff- 
mann, 106. 

3  An  interesting  analogue  to  this  succession  by  brothers  is  offered  by 
that  of  the  high  priests  in  the  Herodian  time ;  comp.  Biichler,  Priester 
und  Cultus,  107  et  seq. 

*  Of  the  -Tax,  we  know  only  six  by  name  :  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Mar  Rab 
(Letter  of  Rabbi  Sherira,  38,  ia\  Rabbi  Zemah  (comp.  G.  S.,  p.  203), 
Rabbi  Tob  (J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402),  Rabbi  Hofni,  father  of  Rabbi  Samuel 


12  THE    GEONIM 

In  this  respect  the  Gaonate  approached  the[institutions  of 
the  Patriarchate  and  Exilarchate,)  which/were  the  preroga- 

(J.  Q.  B.,  1.  c.),  Rabbenu  Hai,  and  Rabbi  Abraham  (R.  E.  J.,  LV,  52).  All 
these,  with  the  exception  of  the  last,  of  whom  we  know  nothing,  were 
members  of  Geonim  families,  and  three  of  them  became  Geonim  them- 
selves— in  view  of  which  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  Halevy,  1.  c.,  266, 
can  maintain  that  the  i"i«  succeeded  to  the  office  of  Gaon  only  in 
extremely  rare  instances.  The  three  whom  we  may  be  said  actually  to 
know.  Rabbi  Joseph,  Rabbi  Zemah,  and  Rabbenu  Hai,  occupied  the  Gaonate. 
Indeed,  in  two  passages,  Rabbi  Sherira  (38,  12  and  15)  remarks  how 
extraordinary  it  was  that  the  Y'lN  Rabbi  Joseph  was  disregarded  in  filling 
the  Gaonate,  upon  which  he  had  a  claim  by  virtue  of  being  n"a« . — What 
the  duties  and  the  nature  of  the  office  of  the  ViN  were,  it  is  difficult 
to  determine  now.  Its  importance  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  certain 
announcements  and  regulations  were  provided  with  the  official  seal  of 
the  Exilarch,  the  two  Geonirn,  and  the  two  Y"iN,  as  we  know  through 
Rabbi  Natronai,  'Ittur,  I,  44  d.  Another  Geonic  Responsum  by  Rabbi 
Natronai,  or  by  his  colleague  of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Paltoi,  in  j"n,  20,  also 
speaks  of  the  'iTur  WCTO  pn  TQ  nyaiN,  "the  four  courts  of  justice  of 
the  two  Academies,"  that  is,  the  courts  of  the  Geonim  and  of  the  Y'ix, 
and  in  Harkavy,  187,  we  find  the  two  courts  presided  over  by  Sherira  as 
Gaon,  and  Hai,  his  son,  as  Ab  Bet  Din,  described  as  TO  u'Vru  D':n  'm  »:c 
'jN-mr1 ;  while  from  the  Genizah  fragment  published  in  G.  S.,  p.  386,  we 
see  that  only  the  court  presided  over  by  the  Gaon  was  called  the  m 
Vnjn  JH.  Apparently  it  was  a  courtesy  extended  to  Rabbenu  Hai 
personally,  to  give  the  appellation  to  his  court  in  spite  of  its  lower 
rank.  The  expression  nytorr  irtr,  or  its  Aramaic  equivalent,  Nruv.an  naa, 
is  identical  with  Vn;n  jn  rn,  as  can  be  seen  from  Harkavy,  156  and  215, 
and  i"cn.  II,  31.  The  n";«  was,  as  is  well  known,  sai  n  «rt,  which 
stands  for  NraTrr;  «aa  H  NTI.  The  chief  judge  of  the  Exilarch  was  also 
called  N33  n  «ri,  in  his  case  shortened  from  unnoi  *m  n  *«H,  which 
office,  it  is  needless  to  say,  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  other  in 
spite  of  the  similarity  in  the  names  of  the  two  offices. — We  are  equally 
at  sea  as  to  the  position  of  the  Nta  '~\ .  Apparently  the  N"?O  'TI  I"IN  jwj 
of  the  Geonic  time  have  some  sort  of  correspondence  to  the  triad  of 
directors  presiding  over  the  Tannaitic  Sanhedrin,  c:n  n"a»  N'ir:,  and 
the  'c^oi  i"2N  p«  in  the  Palestinian  Gaonate.  But  as  we  have  no 
definite  information  about  the  office  of  the  can  (see  the  present 
writer's  article  upon  the  subject,  "Jewish  Encyclopedia,"  s. v.  Hakam), 
this  correspondence  gives  us  no  clue  to  that  of  the  N?3  'i.  As  will 
be  shown  below,  pp.  47-50,  the  title  D*S  was  conferred  upon  the  heads 
of  the  Pumbedita  Academy,  in  the  time  before  they  were  called 
Geonim.  Besides  these,  we  know  the  3*1  Rabbi  Samuel,  the  great- 
grandfather of  Rabbi  Sherira,  and  Rabbi  Amram,  the  maternal  uncle 
of  Rabbi  Sherira.  The  nbs  'YCTD  mentioned  in  Harkavy,  201,  the 


THE    G  AON  ATE  13 

tive  each  of  a  family.  Another  common  point  characterising 
the  three  institutions  is  a  fiscal  system.  The  Gaon  received 
moneys  like  the  Exilarch,  and  like  the  Patriarch  in  earlier 
times.  In  the  Judaism  of  ancient  days,  and  for  hundreds 
of  years  after  the  extinction  of  the  Gaonate,  no  fees  were 
attached  to/the  office  of  a  teacher,  especially  a  teacher  of 
advanced  disciples,  and  still  more  especially  if  the  teacher's 
office  was  connected  with/ the  exercise  of  judicial  authority1. 
Now,  we  know  from  Nathan  ha-Babli  (82,  5  from  below), 
that  the  Gaon  received  a  fixed  salary  for  his  personal  use,  and 
also  Rab  Amram,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Seder,  tells  us 
that  one-half,  or,  according  to  another  reading,  one-fourth, 

grandfather  of  Rabbi  Sherira  (end  of  his  Letter ;  not  the  grandfather 
of  Rabbi  Hai,  as  Harkavy,  409,  calls  him),  was  not  a  xSa  'i,  but  secretary 
to  the  Academy,  as  we  are  informed  explicitly  in  a  Genizah  fragment 
(J.  Q.R.,  XVIII,  402).  The  same  office  was  filled  by  the  great-grandfather 
of  Rabbi  Sherira,  Rabbi  Judah,  before  he  was  appointed  Gaon,  the 
Genizah  fragment  just  cited  being  authority  for  this  statement,  too. 
Again,  the  grandfather  of  this  Rabbi  Judah  occupied  the  same  position 
of  secretary  to  the  Academy,  as  we  are  told  by  Rabbi  Sherira  in  his 
Letter  (comp.  below,  p.  71).  What  the  position  of  Rabbi  Nathan  was, 
the  paternal  uncle  of  Rabbi  Sherira,  it  is  hard  to  say.  The  latter  calls 
him  F]i'?N,  which  may  stand  for  N^  '"\  (comp.  G.  S.,  p.  237),  but  as  his 
father,  Rabbi  Judah,  was  secretary  to  the  Academy,  it  is  probable  that 
the  son  may  have  occupied  the  same  office.  In  a  Genizah  fragment 
(Saadyana,  60)  a  ni'C'rt  ax  jra  n  is  mentioned,  whom  Professor  Schechter 
is  disposed  to  identify  with  Rabbi  Sherira's  uncle  (great-uncle  is  probably 
a  printer's  error).  But  this  identification  is  opposed  to  the  fact  that 
Rabbi  Sherira  calls  him  rpx,  and  not  -\"m.  Perhaps  this  Rabbi  Nathan 
is  identical  with  the  Egyptian  scholar  Rabbi  Nathan,  Saadyana,  113. 
The  MD'  '~\  mentioned  in  a  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Hai,  in  Harkavy,  137, 
may  be  a  Nta  '-\  or  an  VaN.  He  is  probably  identical  with  ncx  'i,  the 
father  of  the  two  Geonim,  Rabbi  Zadok  and  Rabbi  Kimoi,  who  is  the 
author  of  a  Responsum  transmitted  to  us  in  TOXTN,  II,  77,  as  the  present 
writer  has  proved  in  the  JRevis.  Israel.,  V,  u.  The  reading  in  Voc» 
should  be  p»a  F]CV  .  .  .  -nn  'tnn.  This  is  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Abba,  Gaon 
of  Pumbedita  in  814.  A  son  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni,  Israel  (?), 
likewise  was  secretary  to  the  Academy  (J.  Q.  £.,  1.  c.,  404,  where  ':vnnn 
means  "our  young  son,"  as  in  Saadyana,  118).  Perhaps  Israel  is  to  be 
read  instead  of  Samuel  in  Neubauer,  Chronicles,  198,  end.  In  the  fragment 
in  the  J.  Q.  R.  just  cited,  as  well  as  in  J.  Q.  R.,  XIX,  106,  the  sons  of  the 
Geonim  appear  "  as  an  estate  by  themselves." 

1  Comp.  Maimonides,  Commentary  on  Abot,  IV,  5. 


14  THE    GEONIM 

of  all  donations  sent  to  the  Academy  fell  to  the  share  of 
the  Gaon l.  Rabbi  Nehemiah,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
communities,  begs  them  to  send  money  for  himself  and  the 
Academy 2.  Thus  we  have  three  witnesses,  independent  each 
of  the  others,  testifying  to  the  relatively  large  revenues 
of  the  Geonini.  The  same  Nathan  informs  us  that/Babylonia 
and  the  adjacent  countries  were  divideo^into  parishes,  a  part 
of  them  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Exilarchate,  a  second 
part  of  them  under  the  Academy  of  Sura,  and  a  third  part 
under  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita.  1  In  their  respective 
parishes  the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geomrn  exercised  the  right 
of  appointing  the  judges  and  other  communal  officers,  and 
in  acknowledgment  of  their  sovereign  rights  a  fixed  annual 
revenue  was  exacted  and  delivered  into  the  coffers  of  each 3. 


FRICTION  BETWEEN  THE  EXILARCHATE  AND  THE  G AGNATE 
OF  PUMBEDITA. 

These  jhreej  points — roughly  stated,  the  pre-eminence  of 
the  Gaon  wltnin  the  Academy,  the  quasi-hereditary  character 
of  his  office,  and  the  equipment  of  the  Academy  with  power 
to  levy  taxes  and  appoint  communal  officers — prove  abun- 
dantly that  the  Gaonate  was  by  no  means  a  purely  scholarly 

1  Comp.  Marx,  Untersuchungen  zum  Seder  des  Gaon  Rob  Amram,  I,  n. 

8  J.  Q  E. ,  XIX,  106 ;  on1?!  i:b.  He  speaks  of  run:,  free-will  offerings, 
mp'CE,  fixed  dues  (comp.  Rabbi  Abraham  Ibn  Daud,  68,  4,  bottom,  np'Ds), 
and  D"iroirT,  "fifths."  What  is  meant  by  the  last  cannot  readily  be 
determined.  Perhaps  the  name  originated  in  the  fact  that  the  con- 
gregations had  five  kinds  of  taxes  to  pay,  viz.  for  the  Exilarch,  each  of 
the  two  Geonim,  and  each  of  the  two  Academies.  Dr.  Poznan  ski's 
conjecture  (1.  c.,  401),  that  a  fifth  part  of  the  whole  income  of  the  members 
of  the  congregations  was  paid  to  the  Academies,  is  very  improbable,  if 
only  for  the  reason  that  the  Rabbinical  law  does  not  permit  more  than 
a  fifth  of  one's  income  to  be  set  aside  for  alms  and  related  purposes. 
If  the  members  of  the  congregations  had  sent  one-fifth  of  their  income 
to  the  Academies,  there  would  have  been  nothing  left  for  the  home 
needs.  Comp.  also  Saadyana,  118,  where  irpbrra  probably  means  "the 
portion  due  us." 

8  Concerning  landed  estates  and  the  revenues  of  the  Academies,  see 
J.  Q.  R.,  XIV,  389,  an  1  XVIII,  402. 


THE    GAONATE  15 

institution.  What  has  been  adduced  enables  us  also  to  reach 
a  better  understanding  of  the  continual  friction  between 
the  Exilarchate  and  the  Gaonate,  and  the  not  infrequent 
conflicts  that  arose  among  the  pretenders  to  the  Geonic 
office.  Scholarly  zeal,  family  pride,  and  material  interests 
are  factors  of  too  great  potency  in  the  life  of  individuals 
not  to  leave  their  impress  upon  the  course  of  history.  In 
the  Talmudic  time,  while  the  Exilarchate  was  supreme, 
without  a  rival,  dissensions  might  happen  to  occur  now 
and  again  between  the  temporal  power  and  a  scholar  here 
and  there,  but  with  the  Academies  as  such  the  Exilarchs 
had  nothing  to  do.  The  whole  aspect  of  affairs  changed 
in  the  period  of  the  Geonim,  when  the  influence  of  the  body 
of  scholars  found  concrete  expression  in  the  Yeshibot,  the 
vested  privileges  of  which  constituted  them  dangerous  rivals 
of  the  Exilarchs.  The  only  historian  of  the  Geonic  time, 
Rabbi  Sherira  (36,  13),  has  this  to  say  regarding  the  older 
epoch  of  his  period  :  "  The  succession  of  the  Geonim  at 
Sura,  up  to  the  year  one  thousand  (689),  is  not  quite  clear 
to  us,  by  reason  of  the  disorders  and  revolutions  caused  by 
the  Exilarchs;  who  depose  Geonim  and  install  them  again1.'' 
This  statement  of  Rabbi  Sherira's,  regarding  the  relation 
between  the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geonim  of  Sura,  is  rather 
startling,  for,  leaving  out  of  account  the  quarrel  between 
Rabbi  Saadia  and  the  Exilarch  David,  which  sprang  from 
personal  opposition  rather  than  a  conflict  of  powers,  Rabbi 
Sherira  himself  makes  no  mention  of  any  sort  of  discord 
between  the  Geonim  of  Sura  and  the  Exilarchate  for  the 
three  centuries  following  the  date  given  by  him.  The 
appointment  of  Rabbi  Samuel  and  Rabbi  Jehudai,  scholars 
of  Pumbedita,  to  office  at  the  Sura  Academy  (Letter  of 
Sherira,  36,  end,  37,  5),  is  surely  not  to  be  taken  as  an  act  of 
hostility  on  the  part  of  the  Exilarch  Solomon  ben  Hisdai 
against  the  Academy  at  Sura.  It  appears,  on  the  con- 


=  Nnaicnn,  "revolutions"  ;  this  passage  is  badly  corrupted  in 
some  versions  of  the  text,  and  many  an  error  has  been  caused  by  the 
confused  reading. 


l6  THE    GEONIM 

trary,  that  the  Exilarch  was  desirous  of  securing  the  most 
prominent  scholars  of  the  day  for  the  Sura  Gaonate,  as 
Sherira  himself  observes.  The  vacancy  at  Sura  in  843-4, 
caused  by  dissensions  (Letter,  39,  10),  cannot  be  set  to  the 
account  of  the  Exilarch  ;  Kabbi  Sherira  would  not  have 
kept  us  in  the  dark  had  it  been  so.  It  must  have  been 
due  to  some  internal  disturbance  in  the  Academy,  which, 
it  seems,  was  divided  into  two  factions,  partisans  of  the 
family  of  Rabbi  Zadok  and  partisans  of  the  family  of 
Rabbi  Jacob.  The  end  was  that  Rabbi  Moses,  the  son 
of  Rabbi  Jacob,  gained  the  upper  hand,  while  the  son  of 
Rabbi  Zadok,  a  younger  man  than  Rabbi  Moses,  assumed 
the  Gaonate  fifty  years  later. 

On  the  other  hand,  Rabbi  Sherira  records  a  number 
of  conflicts  between  the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geonim  of 
Pumbedita.  About  Rabbi  Natronai  I  (719),  Sherira  says 
(35,  6,  below),  that,  encouraged  by  his  kinship  with  the 
family  of  the  Exilarch  l,  he  ruled  the  Academy  so 
vigorously  that  the  scholars  of  Pumbedita  took  refuge 
in  Sura,  and  did  not  return  to  Pumbedita  until  after 
his  death.  A  generation  later  (about  755)  we  hear  again 
that  the  Exilarch,  actuated  by  personal  animosity  2,  passed 
by  the  claims  of  Rabbi  Aha,  later  famous  on  account  of 
his  work  Sheeltot,  and  instead  installed  his  secretary3, 
Rabbi  Natroi  Kahana,  as  Gaon  of  Pumbedita. 

A  serious  conflict  broke  out  in  771  between  the  Exilarch 
and  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Malka.  Rabbi  Sherira 
(36,  4)  writes:  'wan  na  wnoab  rrw«—  uate  an  —  torn 
noa  *an  'Dp  mm  N'«M  winx  an  no  na  '«at  by  wna^aa  K»B>J 
an  -IDBKI  'mnajn  K'tw  '«ar  oy  Knsa'riD  pmn  jaaaw  pas? 
>TK  K't?J  "WnBJI  py  pi'.  In  view  of  the  historical 


1  The  exact  relationship  is  not  given  by  Rabbi  Sherira.     He  probably 
was  a  son-in-law  of  the  Exilarch. 

2  Ibn  Daud,  63,  14:   rvito  irso  roao  ':BQ.     Rabbi  Sherira  must  have 
meant  the  same,  though  he  does  not  express  it  in  so  many  words. 

3  mrac  ,  comp.  'Erubin,  1  1  b,  and  Yebamot,  42  a,   where  Amoraim  are 
called  NSQIE,  which  naturally  cannot  mean  house  servants,  &c. 


THE    GAONATE  17 

importance  of  this  passage — it  is  the  only  instance  trans- 
mitted to  posterity  of  the  Geonim  interfering  in  a  contest 
about  the  Exilarchate — it  is  worth  while  discussing  it 
thoroughly,  all  the  more  as  it  has  been  completely 
misunderstood  heretofore. 

Graetz  renders  Rabbi  Sherira's  account  in  the  following 
words  (Geschichte,  V3,  p.  386) :  "[Rabbi  Malka]  had  deposed 
Natronai  ben  Habibai,  when  he  [Natronai]  was  about  to 
usurp  the  dignity  from  Zakkai  ben  Ahunai,  who  had  been 
in  possession  of  the  office  of  Exilarch  for  some  years  past. 
The  two  Academies  united  in  supporting  Zakkai ;  they 
deposed  Natronai,  and  he  had  to  flee  to  Maghreb."  Weiss, 
in  his  Dor  Dor  we-Doreshaw,  IV,  29,  goes  a  step  farther. 
He  gives  the  following  description  of  the  incident:  "In 
the  time  of  Rabbi  Malka  a  dispute  occurred  between  him 
and  the  Exilarch  Natronai  ben  Zabinai 1,  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  the  Gaon  had  determined  to  make  Zakkai  ben 
Ahunai  Exilarch.  In  this  purpose  he  was  aided  and 
abetted  by  the  Gaon  of  Sura.  With  united  forces  they 
worked  to  remove  Natronai  from  his  office,  and  put  Zakkai 
ben  Ahunai  in  his  place,  and  they  succeeded.  Natronai 
was  forced  out,  and,  grieved  by  the  dishonour  done  him, 
he  left  Babylonia,  and  settled  in  Palestine 2.  The  cause  of 


1  Weiss  accepts  the  incorrect  reading  wit,  while  Graetz  properly  has 
wan.  Albargeloni,  nvyn  'D,  256,  writes  the  name  wan,  as  Rabbi 
Isaac  of  Vienna  does  in  i"i«,  I,  114  d,  though  the  source  followed  by  the 
last,  DTIC  ,  28  a,  reads  wan . 

a  Graetz  again  displays  his  insight  here,  when  he  translates  nyo  with 
Maghreb,  that  is,  Spain  and  North  Africa,  for  Albargeloni,  I.e.,  and 
the  correspondents  of  Rabbi  Hai  (D':pi  cnc,  56,  where  ncirr  is  a  printer's 
error  for  TIBC,  the  Parma  MS.  and  Albargeloni,  rrvs'  'D  'r,  108,  having 
the  correct  word  TIED)  have  the  tradition  that  Rabbi  Natronai  went  to  the 
Maghreb.  My  colleague  Dr.  Friedlaender  tells  me  that  the  Arabic  writer 
Ibn  Hazm,  a  contemporary  and  acquaintance  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nngid, 
makes  sport  in  his  Milal  wa'n-Nihal,  I,  156,  and  V,  4,  of  the  Jews  who  say 
that  one  of  their  sages  went  from  Bagdad  to  Cordova  in  a  day,  and 
horned  an  enemy  of  their  people  there.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  sage  was  Rabbi  Natronai,  of  whom  Albnrgeloni  and  Rabbi  Hai 
alike  report  that  he  went  to  Spain  by  means  of  -pin  rcj»cp.  It  is  true 
I  C 


1 8  THE    GEONIM 

the  conflict  was,  as  we  can  see  from  the  Letter  of  Rabbi 
Sherira,  that  Natronai  was  a  scholar,  and  the  Geonim  did 
not  care  to  have  a  learned  Exilarch  in  office." 

In  the  first  place.  Rabbi  Sherira  makes  the  explicit 
statement  that  Zakkai  had  been  Exilarch  many  years 
before  Natronai.  Then,  even  if  it  were  true  that  the 
Geonim  opposed  Natronai,  which  I  hope  to  show  was  not 
the  case,  they  were  not  conspiring  against  the  Exilarch  in 
office.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  giving  him  their  support 
in  his  struggle  with  an  usurper  of  his  dignity.  Graetz,  who 
speaks  in  the  body  of  his  book  (p.  1 74)  somewhat  vaguely 
of  the  conflict  between  Natronai  and  Zakkai  as  a  "  quarrel 
about  the  Exilarchate  between  two  pretenders,"  is  more 
precise  in  his  note  on  the  passage,  in  which  he  properly 
denominates  Natronai  a  usurper.  Halevy,  in  a  long  tirade 
against  "the  German  scholars"  (231-2),  accuses  Graetz 
of  having  perverted  facts  only  to  cast  a  slur  upon  the 
Geonim,  yet  he  himself  agrees  with  Graetz  in  his  statement 
of  the  affair  between  the  Gaon  and  the  Exilarch.  The  truth 
is  that  Graetz,  and  Halevy  as  well,  misunderstood  the  case 

that  Rabbi  Hai  does  not  give  credence  to  the  story  told  him  about 
Rabbi  Natronai,  but  his  incredulity  extends  only  to  the  miraculous 
manner  of  his  removal  from  place  to  place,  not  to  the  fact  of  his 
emigration  to  Spain.  Albargeloni  furthermore  relates  that  Rabbi  Natronai 
wrote  the  Talmud  down,  from  memory,  for  the  use  of  the  Spanish 
Jews.  The  statement  of  the  great-grandson  of  Rabbi  Paltoi,  J.Q.R., 
XVIII,  401,  that  Rabbi  Paltoi  sent  the  Spanish  congregations  copies 
of  the  Talmud  and  Talmudic  explanations,  in  no  wise  contradicts 
Albargeloni.  Even  if  it  is  true  that  Rabbi  Natronai  wrote  the  whole 
Talmud  down  for  the  Spaniards,  it  would  not  be  at  all  remarkable 
to  find  that  copies  of  the  Talmud  were  rare  in  Spain  a  century  later. 
One  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Rabbi  Paltoi,  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid 
(Ibn  Daud,  72, 2,  bottom)  had  copies  of  the  Talmud  made  and  distributed. 
On  the  subject  of  the  circulation  of  copies  of  the  Talmud  in  the  time 
of  Rabbi  Paltoi,  see  G.  S.,  p.  295.  The  Responsum  discussed  there  (p.  294) 
was  probably  given  by  Rabbi  Natronai,  the  contemporary  of  Rabbi  Paltoi. 
Briill,  Jahrbucher,  IX,  117,  attributes  the  opposition  of  the  Geonim  to 
Rabbi  Natronai  to  the  fact  of  his  putting  the  Talmud  into  writing. 
They  insisted  upon  oral  transmission.  But  how  could  they  have  divined 
what  he  would  do  after  leaving  Babylonia  ? 


THE    GAONATE  19 

completely.  With  historic  insight  Graetz  (1.  c.)  recognised 
the  difficulty  in  Sherira's  words :  p^  tota  21  10BK1  "rmayi 
myc6  f>TX  x<BO  wniMi  py.  Connecting  the  death  of  Rabbi 
Malka  with  the  departure  of  Rabbi  Natronai  for  the 
3iyo  is  altogether  inexplicable,  and  the  solution  of  the 
difficulty  offered  by  Graetz  not  at  all  satisfying.  But  this 
is  far  from  being  the  only  knotty  point  in  the  passage  in 
which  Sherira  mentions  the  occurrence.  He  begins  his 
description  with  the  words,  "And  Rabbi  Malka  deposed 
Natronai/'  and  continues  with  the  statement  that  the  two 
Academies,  in  joint  session,  attended  also  by  the  Exilarch 
Zakkai,  deposed  the  opponent  of  the  latter,  the  same 
Natronai.  But  if  both  Academies  made  common  cause 
against  Natronai,  then  why  should  Rabbi  Malka  be 
singled  out  as  the  one  to  depose  Natronai?  It  is  clear 
that  Sherira  speaks  of  the  activity  of  Rabbi  Malka  in 
the  first  sentence,  and  in  the  second  sentence  of  the 
activity  of  the  two  Academies,  which  makes  good  sense 
only  if  Rabbi  Malka  acted  in  opposition  to  the  two 
Academies.  And  that  is  exactly  what  Sherira  reports, 
^y  ,  ,  .  i>  rvnriN  does  not  mean  "to  depose,"  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  install  one  in  office  in  opposition  to  another. 
Sherira  himself  corroborates  this  linguistic  usage  on  the 
next  page  (38,  u):  no  ^y  TTinnNi . , .  prra"1  m  no  ^o  mrni 
*1DV  *m — "and  after  him  Rabbi  Isaac  officiated  as  Gaon, 
whom  they  [the  Academy  and  the  Exilarch]  installed  in 
opposition  to  Rabbi  Joseph."  Sherira  goes  on  to  explain 
that  Rabbi  Joseph,  by  reason  of  his  position,  learning, 
and  descent,  had  a  claim  upon  the  Gaonate,  but  that  the 
Exilarch  had  ordained  Rabbi  Isaac  as  Gaon  "  over  him."  In 
the  light  of  these  facts  the  passage  regarding  Rabbi  Malka 
in  Sherira's  Letter  reads  as  follows:  "And  he  [Rabbi 
Malka]  installed  Natronai  ben  Habibai  as  Exilarch  in 
opposition  to  the  Exilarch  Zakkai  ben  Ahunai,  who  had 
been  vested  with  the  office  for  some  years.  The  two 
Academies,  on  the  other  hand,  assembled  in  joint  session, 
Zakkai  also  being  present,  deposed  him.  Accordingly,  when 

c  2 


20  THE    GEONIM 

Rabbi  Malka  departed  this  life,  the  Exilarch  Natronai 
emigrated  to  the  West." 

This  case  anticipates  the  later  one  of  Rabbi  Saadia, 
when  he  made  Hassan  Exilarch  in  opposition  to  David, 
who  had  been  holding  the  office  for  many  a  long  year. 
And  as,  at  the  time  of  Saadia,  the  two  Academies, 
yielding  to  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  by  the  Exilarch 
David,  divested  Saadia  and  Hassan  of  their  dignities,  so 
also  it  happened  at  the  time  of  Rabbi  Malka,  for  Til"Qyi, 
as  the  correct  texts  read,  refers  to  Rabbi  Malka:  "They 
[the  Academies]  together  with  the  Exilarch  deposed  him 
[Rabbi  Malka]."  Later  copyists,  who  went  astray  in  the 
same  way  as  the  modern  historians,  added  wnB3;>  after 
Til-OVl  l.  Naturally,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Rabbi 
Malka  acted  single-handed  in  his  opposition  to  the  reigning 
Exilarch  and  the  Academies.  He  must  surely  have  had 
his  followers,  like  Rabbi  Saadia  during  his  suspension 
from  office,  and  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  he  would 
have  come  out  victor  in  the  end,  as  Rabbi  Saadia  suc- 
ceeded in  his  struggle,  had  he  not  fallen  during  the  fray. 
And  his  death  was  the  reason  that  made  Rabbi  Natronai 
go  to  the  West.  He  had  to  give  up  the  contest  after  his 
main  support,  Rabbi  Malka,  had  passed  away. 

The  accusation  against  the  Geonim,  that  they  incited 
quarrels  with  the  Exilarchate  when  the  incumbent  was 
a  scholar,  is  wholly  unfounded.  If  history  were  written 
according  to  such  methods,  the  inquirer  would  reach  the 
opposite  result,  that  the  partisanship  of  the  Geonim  for 
one  close  to  them  in  intellectual  interests  led  them  to 


1  But  even  if  »N:vno:b  ^mis1!  were  proved  to  be  the  correct  reading,  the 
other  assertion,  that  Rabbi  Malka  was  not  the  opponent,  but  rather 
the  friend,  of  Rabbi  Natronai,  remains  unassailed.  It  is,  however, 
inconceivable  that  Rabbi  Sherira  should  have  used  the  expression  'rmori 
of  an  usurper,  seeing  that  with  him,  as  for  instance  36,  9,  it  has  the 
meaning  of  removing  one  from  an  office  legitimately  held.  And  it 
would  be  an  absurdity  to  say  that  "  the  Exilarch  removed  the  counter- 
Exilarch  from  office,"  as  though  a  pretender  would  acknowledge  the 
legitimacy  of  his  opponent. 


THE    GAONATE  21 

prefer  a  learned  to  an  unlearned  Exilarch.  Now  we 
know  that  the  quarrel  about  the  Exilarchate  at  the 
time  of  Zakkai  ben  Ahunai  grew  out  of  far  other  motives. 
From  the  Genizah  fragment  given  in  Saadyana,  76,  it 
appears  that  Zakkai  was  a  descendant  of  Bostanai  and 
a  Persian  princess,  a  marriage  the  legitimacy  of  which 
was  questioned  by  many.  For  this  reason,  Rabbi  Malka 
was  prepared  to  support  Natronai,  whose  descent  was 
unblemished.  From  the  Genizah  fragment  we  learn  also 
that  the  descendants  of  the  princess  tried  to  force  the 
recognition  of  their  legitimacy  by  resort  to  the  power  of 
the  non-Jewish  government.  Accordingly  Rabbi  Malka 
was  justified  in  his  opposition  to  Zakkai. 

Scarcely  ten  years  pass  (782),  and  again  we  hear  of  the 
Exilarch's  deposing  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Haninai 
ben  Abraham.  Rabbi  Sherira,  who  usually  drops  a  hint  at 
least  as  to  the  cause  of  such  disputes,  has  not  a  word  to  say 
about  this  occurrence.  It  is  fair  to  take  this  as  corroborat- 
ing the  supposition  made  above  (p.  10),  that  Rabbi  Abraham 
Gaon,  the  father  of  this  Rabbi  Haninai,  was  a  brother  of 
Rabbi  Xatronai,  and,  as  he  belonged  to  the  Sura  Academy,  as 
will  appear  later,  and  received  the  Gaonate  of  Pumbedita 
against  the  wish  of  the  Academicians  there,  the  assumption 
is  not  unwarranted  that  the  deposing  of  Rabbi  Haninai 
was  due  to  the  wishes  of  the  Academy,  which  was  not 
inclined  to  accept  an  outsider.  As  to  Rabbi  Sherira,  he 
had  good  reason  for  not  desiring  to  enter  into  a  detailed 
discussion  of  the  case ;  it  hardly  redounded  to  the  credit  of 
his  own  Academy. 

In  the  year  828  we  hear  once  more  of  interference  with 
the  affairs  of  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  on  the  part  of  the 
Exilarch.  The  two  pretenders  to  the  Exilarchate,  Daniel 
and  David,  each  had  "  his  "  Gaon  at  Pumbedita,  with  the 
result  that  even  when  David  maintained  the  upper  hand, 
Pumbedita  was  supplied  with  two  Geonim,  Rabbi  Abraham 
and  Rabbi  Joseph. 

It  is   not  possible   to   define   the   part  played   by  the 


22  THE    GEONIM 

Exilarchs  in  the  disputes  at  Pumbedita  between  the  Geo- 
nim  Kabbi  Isaac  and  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Rabbi  in  833, 
and  between  Rabbi  Menahem  and  Rabbi  Mattathias  in 
859.  About  Rabbi  Isaac,  Sherira  says  (38,  14)  that  the 
Exilarch  David  ben  Judah  had  installed  him,  but  that  does 
not  guarantee  Isaac's  having  been  his  candidate  as  opposed 
to  Rabbi  Joseph,  because  the  expression  used  by  Sherira  is 
irwinNl,  "  and  they  appointed  him  [Rabbi  Isaac]  as  Gaon." 
"  They  "  probably  means  the  members  of  the  Academy  *. 

Finally,  a  feud  of  many  years'  duration  broke  out 
between  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita  and  the  Exilarchs, 
under  the  last  of  them,  David,  who  appointed  Rabbi 
Kohen-Zedek  to  be  the  Gaon,  while  the  Academy  invested 
its  own  candidate,  Rabbi  Mebasser,  with  the  dignity. 

THE  LANGUAGE  OF  NATHAN  HA-BABLI'S  REPORT. 

To  the  student  who  regards  history  as  more  than  a 
mere  stringing  together  of  disconnected  events,  the  friction 
between  the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita 
presents  an  interesting  problem  in  various  respects.  Many 
a  question  evoked  by  the  combative  relation  between 
Gaonate  and  Exilarchate  clamours  for  a  reply.  In  the 
first  place,  why  was  it  that  the  Academy  at  Sura  was  not 
troubled  by  the  interference  of  the  Exilarchs  in  the  course 
of  a  period  during  which  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  felt 
their  heavy  hand  half  a  dozen  times'?  What  was  the 
reason  that  the  Exilarch,  who  lorded  it  over  the  Academy 
at  Sura  until  the  end  of  the  seventh  century,  assumed  so 
peaceable  an  attitude  toward  it  during  the  three  centuries 
that  followed  ?  And,  in  the  third  place,  what  explanation 
can  be  adduced  for  the  fact  that  all  the  wrangles  between 

1  Halevy,  who  regards  the  Exilarchs  as  universal  scapegoats,  holds 
(p.  271),  without  advancing  any  proofs,  that  it  was  again  the  Exilarch 
who  appointed  Rabbi  Isaac  as  Gaon  in  opposition  to  the  wish  of  the 
Academy.  The  words  maoD  121  prove  nothing,  because  the  official 
ordination  was  always  performed  by  the  Exilarch. 


THE    GAONATE  23 

the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita  occurred  in 
a  single  century,  from  719-828  ? l 

These  questions  can  be  answered  only  when  we  have 
attained  to  intimate  knowledge  of  the  rise  of  the  Gaonate 
and  its  relation  to  the  Exilarchate  on  one  side  and  the 
two  Academies  on  the  other,  and  knowledge  of  this  sort  is 
accessible  to  us  only  through  closer  acquaintance  with  the 
sole  and  only  account  of  the  Academies  that  has  come 
down  to  us. 

Rabbi  Samuel  Shulam,  in  his  additions  to  Rabbi 
Abraham  Zacuto's  Yohasin,  gives  an  account  of  the 
Babylonian  Academies  and  of  the  Exilarchs  Ukba  and 
David,  after  one  Rabbi  Nathan  the  Babylonian.  An 
Arabic  fragment  of  the  report  concerning  Ukba  was 
published  by  Dr.  Israel  Friedlaender  in  the  J.  Q.K,  XVII, 
747-61.  The  great  historical  value  of  this  document 
makes  the  language  in  which  it  was  written  originally 
a  matter  of  prime  importance,  and  it  behoves  us  to  give 
our  attention  to  this  question  first  of  all.  Dr.  Fried- 
laender, in  his  learned  and  instructive  introduction  to  the 
narrative,  is  decidedly  of  opinion  that  it  was  written  in 
Arabic  originally,  but  I  venture  to  believe  that  the  proofs 
adduced  by  him  are  not  conclusive. 

The  expression  D^D^a  jnu  .  .  ,  N  DIN  is  admittedly  an 
Arabism,  but  it  had  become  so  fluent  a  locution  with  the 
Arabic-speaking  Jews  that  it  cropped  up  in  their  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic  writings  as  well.  Its  use  by  Nathan,  there- 
fore, proves  nothing.  In  Rabbi  Sherira's  Letter  it  occurs 
three  times  (35,  6,  below ;  40,  i  ;  and  40,  5),  yet  no  one 
is  inclined  to  doubt  that  the  Letter  has  been  transmitted  to 
us  in  its  original  language 2.  Dr.  Friedlaender  further 

1  The  controversy  between  Rabbi  Mebasser  and  Rabbi  Kohen-Zedek  is 
of  quite  another  character,  as  will  be  demonstrated  in  detail  further  on. 

2  The  expression  ....  a  jrro  occurs  frequently  in  original  Hebrew 
works ;  comp.,  for  instance,  ruDErr,  I,  61 ;  crteiT  »i:3,  III,  15 b ;  J.Q.R.,  XIX , 
106,  730,  734.     The  phrase,  derived  from  the  Arabic,  was  the  model  for 
-\3:,  "known  under  the  name";  comp.  Harkavy,  D':\r'  CJ  O'vnn,  II,  10. 
In  the  inscription  on  the  Cattaui  synagogue  in  Old  Cairo,  reproduced 


24  THE    GEONIM 

claims  the  phrase  DC^NI  by  1^  13rD'1  (79,  19)  as  a  translation 
of  the  Arabic  nriDfrO")  HPJH.  The  expression,  occurring 
three  times  in  close  succession,  has  a  Hebrew  equivalent  in 
each  of  the  three  contexts:  Btn  WilN  WWl— B*n  ?ni«  uvum 
— "pvy  hf  inrrum.  If  the  use  of  D^KI  .  .  .  mron  proves 
anything,  it  would  rather  indicate  that  the  one  who  trans- 
lated the  document  from  Hebrew  into  Arabic  did  not 
understand  it,  and  left  the  original  untranslated.  What 
Nathan  says  in  this  passage  is  that  the  Gaon  of  Sura 
sent  word  in  writing  to  his  followers,  either  to  offer  their 
congratulations  personally  to  David  ben  Zakkai,  on  his 
assumption  of  office  (irwiTtP),  or,  if  there  were  any l  who 
for  some  valid  reason  could  not  appear  before  him,  to 
express  their  gratification  at  his  success  in  a  letter  to 
the  Exilarch — Dt^QJ  by  "6  'GrDvi.  In  one  way  or  another 
they  all  were  to  manifest  their  assent  to  his  choice  as 
Exilarch  — K>xn  iniN  uvwi.  In  the  description  that  follows, 
of  the  public  presentation  of  the  Exilarch,  Nathan  properly 
omits  all  reference  to  the  written  homage  ordered  by  the 
Gaon.  Nathan  is  equally  precise  in  his  account  of  the 
homage  paid  the  Exilarch  by  Kohen-Zedek.  The  two 
dignitaries  met  face  to  face,  hence  the  expression  used 
by  Nathan,  "pvy  by  inrrurn,  where  DVJ?  is  a  synonym  for 
the  K>SJ  used  before.  For  the  rest,  the  phrase  employed 
by  Nathan  to  express  the  public  recognition  of  the 
Exilarch  as  such,  nta  twi  JTUit,  throws  new  light  upon 
an  expression  occurring  in  the  Talmud  several  times  — 
ami  Nnpiy  w:ni>  KIDH  n  mms — which  has  caused  the 
lexicographers  no  little  difficulty2.  The  Aramaic  "DIN 

by  E.  N.  Adler,  "Jews  in  Many  Lands,"  30,  mrr  does  not  mean  "the 
famous,"  but  "named."  Comp.  also  Harkavy,  Saadia,  114,  ....  p  rim, 
and  227,  note  6,  and  Steinschneider,  Jubelschrift,  139,  line  8  from  bottom, 
and  Harkavy,  186,  where  ID:  =  3  rim. 

1  On  the   Tannaim  mentioned  in  this  passage,  comp.  Marx,  J.Q.R., 
XVIII,  771,  to  which  should  be  added  that  Rabbi  Hai  in  the  Responsum 
appearing  as  an  appendix  to  Rabbi  Sherira's  Letter,  ed.  Mayence,  speaks 
of  ...  o'wnn  (65)  ;  comp.  also  »'^nv  'c,  130,  ed.  Neubauer. 

2  On  the  locution  irrnnN  c'Mn,  in  the  Seder  'Olam  Zutta,  see  Lazarus,  Die 
Hdupter  der  Vertriebenen,  100-1,  and  Briill,  Centralanzeiger,  67. 


THE    GAONATE 


25 


corresponds  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  rnan  of  Nathan. 
Accordingly,  the  translation  would  run:  "Rabbi  Hisda 
proclaimed  Rabban  Ukba  as  Exilarch,  on  which  occasion 
the  new  Exilarch  spoke  as  follows."  The  Arabic  1"ipy^ 
nnDxn  would  be  rather  colourless,  while  the  Hebrew 
i'run  is  the  very  term  one  would  expect  to  find  here. 

The  expression  by  Toy  is  not  an  Arabism ;  it  is  found 
in  the  Talmudim  and  the  older  Midrashim  with  con- 
siderable frequency.  I  shall  adduce  only  a  few  of  the 
passages.  D'con  i^y  iioj?^  i^r  N^>I  py  spm  rnrrwn  pa, 
"  Twilight  lasts  but  an  instant,  so  that  the  scholars  could 
not  determine  its  duration"  (Ter.  Berakot,  i,  2  b,  35,  and 
parallel  passages ;  Babli,  ibid.,  2  b,  end),  by  Tioy^  trp'Qt? 
TinP  ?W  p'JO,  "He  wanted  to  determine  the  number  of 
Israelites,"  which  corresponds  exactly  to  the  expression 
used  by  Nathan  (Yer.  Taaniyot,  II,  56  d,  44).  The  Tal- 
mudic  equivalent  for  errando  discimur  is  by  tciy  mx  px 
era  braa  p  DK  N^N  mm  nm,  "Man  cannot  fathom  the 
words  of  the  Torah  until  he  has  made  mistakes  "  (Gittin, 
^3a).  Regarding  the  motion  of  the  celestial  spheres,  Rabbi 
Simon  ben  Yohai  says:  nmni?  IK'SX  <K1  nxo  nc'p  nann 
v!?y  i^oyb,  "It  is  so  difficult  a  problem  that  man  cannot 
fathom  it "  (Genesis  R.,  VI,  8,  and  parallel  passages). 

These  quotations  will  probably  suffice  to  show  that 
^y  icy ]  is  an  Arabism  neither  with  Nathan  nor  with 
Rabbi  Saadia,  who  employs  it  twice  (Harkavy,  Saadia, 
152,  20,  and  170,  20). 

VJ^KI  by  noy  in  the  sense  used  here  is  no  better  Arabic 
than  Hebrew,  v^y  icy  is  classical  Hebrew  (Judges  iii.  19, 
2  Kings  xxii.  19),  and  the  connexion  with  ITK1  can  be 
authenticated  as  little  in  Arabic  as  in  Hebrew.  Nover- 

1  In  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim  this  is  not  a  rare  expression  ;  comp., 
for  instance,  i*n,  143  (which  is  falsely  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Joseph  ben 
Abitur,  while  it  actually  is  from  the  hand  of  a  Gaon  of  Sura,  as  appears 
from  the  reference  to  "my  teacher  Rabbi  Zadok  "  ;  the  superscription 
in  MS.  Luzzatto,  pw  mro  -To,  has  probably  preserved  the  truth  for  us), 
and  G.S.,  p.  284  ;  also  Rashi,  Pesahim,  46  a. 


26  THE    GEONIM 

theless,  the  expression  is  well  chosen.  It  is  a  vivid 
description  of  Kohen-Zedek  sitting  absorbed  in  study,  his 
head  bent  over  his  book,  and  suddenly  raising  it  to  see 
Nissi  standing  before  him,  as  it  were,  "  over  his  head." 
Moreover,  the  expression  1SPJO  by  ivy  is  found  in  an 
original  Hebrew  letter  from  the  last  Exilarch  Hezekiah 
(R.fi.J.,  LV,  50),  though  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
meaning  there  is  not  clear. 

That  the  employment  of  the  Biblical  expression  f"iK 
,  " nativeUand,"  in  the  sense  of  "native  place,"  is 
a  result  of  Arabic  influence,  will  hardly  recommend  itself 
to  acceptance.  In  such  early  passages  as  2  Sam.  v.  6  and 
i  Chron.  xi.  4,  piK  is  used  in  the  meaning  of  city,  in  these 
cases  Jerusalem.  Similarly  in  the  Mishnah  and  in  post- 
Talmudic  Hebrew  ru'HD  means  both  city  and  province. 

Other  variations  between  the  Arabic  fragment  and  the 
version  of  the  Yohasin  are  as  inadequate  to  establish 
the  priority  of  the  former  as  we  have  found  the  linguistic 
peculiarities  of  the  Arabic.  As  to  the  difference  between 
the  Arabic  and  Hebrew  texts,  relative  to  the  length  of 
Kohen-Zedek's  Gaonate  (78,  7),  it  will  be  shown  below, 
p.  66,  that  neither  is  correct.  Even  if  we  accept  the  Arabic 
reading,  the  '»  of  the  Hebrew  text  may  still  be  explained 
as  a  copyist's  misreading  of  the  Hebrew  y:nK  as  D'ymN . 

In  the  next  line,  the  Hebrew  has  only  man  ptal3  vn, 
while  the  Arabic  reads  pn  ttn^tt  iha11,  '•'  whence  the  Dayyanim 
used  to  be  sent  thither."  Dr.  Friedlaender  notes  that  it 
is  "missing  in  Hebrew."  The  fact  is  that  the  expression 
used  in  the  Hebrew  is  the  one  current  in  the  Talmud 
(Sanhedrin,  5 a)  to  indicate  the  conferring  of  judicial 
authorisation 1.  The  Arabic  is  a  somewhat  prolix  circum- 
locution of  a  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  terminus  technicus. 
The  same  seems  to  apply  to  the  next  line,  where  the 
Hebrew  has  NTtM  unm,  "and  his  son-in-law  Natira,"  while 
the  Arabic  reads,  N-VDJ  nr»3K  JIT  run5i,  "his  son-in-law 

1  Comp.  also  the  Genizah  fragment,  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402,  where  nvnn 
is  used  in  this  sense. 


THE    GAONATE  27 

Natira,  the  husband  of  his  daughter."  The  only  explana- 
tion that  can  be  offered  for  the  superfluous  description  of 
a  son-in-law  as  the  husband  of  one's  daughter,  is  that  the 
Arabic  first  gave  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  fanni } 
which  is  the  Arabic  run5i,  but  as  this  Arabic  word  may 
mean  not  only  son-in-law  (the  Hebrew  ijnm)j  but  also 
father-in-law  (the  Hebrew  unini),  the  translator  added,  in 
the  interest  of  intelligibility,  "  the  husband  of  his  daughter." 

The  fact  that  in  the  Hebrew,  78,  3,  below,  and  in  other 
passages  (79, 20, 25),  733  is  used  in  the  sense  of  Bagdad,  makes 
it  impossible  to  assume  that  "the  editor"  was  ignorant 
of  this  use  of  733.  The  correct  reading  of  the  Hebrew  is 
733  itan,  and  the  sentence  733  i^en  WV  ny  is  to  be  trans- 
lated "  until  the  king  [  =  Sultan]  left  Bagdad,"  exactl}'  as 
the  Arabic  has  it.  Taking  into  consideration  the  Biblical 
style  of  the  Hebrew,  it  is  not  surprising  to  have  N^ 
construed  with  the  accusative  instead  of  with  JD.  The 
notion  conveyed  by  the  Arabic,  that  the  Exilarch  was 
merely  expelled  from  Bagdad,  is  certainly  erroneous.  In 
this  case,  it  would  be  inexplicable  why  he  should  have 
felt  compelled  to  journey  to  Africa.  The  Hebrew  version 
offers  a  natural  solution.  After  the  Exilarch  had  been 
banished  from  the  whole  of  Babylonia,  he  tried  to  settle 
in  the  East,  that  is,  in  the  Persian  provinces.  But  those 
regions  stood  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Exilarch,  as 
Nathan  himself  observes  (86,  19),  and  he  had  no  choice 
except  to  go  to  the  West1.  The  misunderstanding,  it 
appears,  cannot  be  charged  against  the  Hebrew,  nor  against 
"  the  editor."  It  lies  with  the  Arabic,  which  attached  an 
incorrect  meaning  to  733  in  the  expression  733  0:3*  N7t? 
733  ni37»  (79,  13) — a  rather  excusable  error,  as  Nathan 
uses  733  throughout  for  Bagdad. 

According  to  Dr.  Friedlaender,  the  Hebrew  is  guilty  of 

1  The  observation  made  by  Professor  Noldeke  and  reported  by 
Dr.  Friedlaender,  1.  c.,  759,  note  7,  is  unintelligible  to  me.  That  Ukba 
migrated  to  Africa  and  not  Palestine  is  reported  very  clearly  at  the 
beginning  of  Rabbi  Nathan's  narrative. 


28  THE    GEONIM 

a  gross  mistake  in  ascribing  thaumaturgical  activity  to 
the  blind  Nissi1,  of  which,  he  says,  the  document  which 
he  holds  to  be  the  original  knew  nothing.  On  the  other 
hand,  Dr.  Friedlaender  himself  concedes  that  he  is  unable 
to  establish  how  the  alleged  Arabic  original  actually  did 
read,  to  produce  the  error,  and  in  these  circumstances, 
it  seems  to  me,  the  question  must  be  left  open,  all  the 
more  as  so  eminent  an  Arabist  as  Dr.  Noldeke,  whose 
view  is  quoted  in  Dr.  Friedlaender's  article,  maintains  that 
the  Arabic  fragment  credits  Nissi  with  wonder-working 
powers.  It  may  be  said,  parenthetically,  that  the  mira- 
culous opening  of  locked  doors  is  mentioned  elsewhere  in 
Jewish  legend.  Mordecai,  a  Midrash  relates  (Buber,  'D 
xrnjNl,  65),  surprised  Bigthan  and  Teresh  at  night, 
unobserved  by  the  guards,  and  hindered  by  none,  as  it 
is  written :  "  I  will  go  before  thee  and  make  the  crooked 
places  straight.  I  will  break  in  pieces  the  gates  of  brass 
and  cut  in  sunder  the  bars  of  iron  "  (Isa.  xlv.  2). 

I  hold,  then,  that  not  only  is  there  no  support  for  the 
theory  that  Nathan's  account  was  written  originally  in 
Arabic,  but  a  comparison  between  the  Arabic  fragment 
and  the  Hebrew  version  in  Yohawn,  reveals  some  features 
tending  to  establish  the  priority  of  the  Hebrew.  Never- 
theless, I  consider  that  the  question  as  to  the  language 
in  which  Nathan  wrote,  is  still  open.  There  is  one  sentence 
which  betrays  an  unmistakable  Arabism  :  rtann  }»l  ""J^cri  JO 
»JB>n  ny^inoi  jcnsn  f»l  (83,  16).  So  far  as  I  know,  this  use 
of  fo  occurs  only  in  works  translated  into  Hebrew,  not 
in  Hebrew  originals,  and  it  gives  considerable  weight  to 
Dr.  Friedlaender's  opinion  as  to  the  original  character  of 
the  Arabic  text.  In  any  event,  the  Arabic  contains  some 

1  Nissi,  the  son  of  the  Exilarch  and  brother-in-law  of  the  Gaon  Sar 
Shalom,  is  mentioned  by  Kabbi  Hai  in  his  Kesponsum  appended  to  the 
Letter  of  Kabbi  Sherira,  ed.  Mayence,  63.  bNitra  m  mi  »D':,  in  DTIE, 
380,  is  derived  from  the  Seder  Rab  Amram,  as  can  be  seen  from  Marx, 
Uiitersuchungen,  &c.,  8,  Hebrew  part,  but  '•n'l  'no  (32)  reads  'i»i  instead  of 
'D':.  I  have  only  to  add  that  the  Genizah  fragments  of  the  YerushaJ.mi 
read  'p:  in  all  passages  in  which  our  texts  have  wr:  or  nD3. 


THE    G AON ATE  29 

readings  that  are  preferable  to  the  Hebrew  in  corresponding 
passages,  and  they  are  of  great  value  in  the  study  of 
Nathan's  account. 

NATHAN  HA-BABLI  IDENTIFIED. 

Another  important  question  must  be  settled,  and  a  more 
difficult  one.  Who  was  this  Nathan,  the  Babylonian,  the 
author  of  the  report  we  are  considering  ?  Graetz's  hypo- 
thesis (Geschichte,  V3,  47 1—2),  that  he  was  one  of  "  the 
four  captives,"  and  the  founder  of  Jewish  learning  in 
Provence  is,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  wholly  untenable. 
From  the  Genizah  fragments,  we  know  first  of  all  that 
Rabbi  Shemariah  ben  Elhanan,  one  of  the  four  captives, 
was  a  pupil  of  Rabbi  Sherira  (J.Q.jR.,  VI,  222).  But 
Nathan,  as  Graetz  himself  observes,  wrote  his  account 
during  the  Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Aaron,  and  knows  nothing 
of  Sherira.  Moreover,  Rabbi  Hushiel's  Letter,  published 
by  Professor  Schechter  («/.  Q.  R.,  XI,  643-50),  stamps  the 
whole  story  of  the  four  captives  as  a  legend,  at  least  in 
the  form  in  which  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  Rabbi 
Abraham  Ibn  Daud.  There  may  be  an  historical  kernel 
in  it,  but  not  more.  Furthermore,  the  hypothesis  advanced 
by  Graetz  rests  on  a  false  construction  put  upon  a  sentence 
in  Zacuto's  Tohasin  (ed.  London,  174),  where  a  sentence 
is  quoted  from  a  "Rabbi  Nathan,  the  Babylonian,  in  Nar- 
bonne."  The  practice  of  applying  the  name  Babylon  to 
Rome  is  not  limited  to  the  New  Testament  (Rev.  xiv.  8 ; 
xvi.  1 9 ;  xvii.  5).  It  is  current  in  the  Midrash  as  well 
(Cant.  -R.,  I,  6),  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Zacuto  is 
referring  in  the  passage  under  consideration  to  Rabbi 
Nathan  of  Rome,  the  author  of  the  'Aruk,  who  studied 
in  Narbonne  under  Rabbi  Moses  ha-Darshan.  To  clinch 
the  identification,  the  very  sentence  cited  by  Zacuto  in 
the  name  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  the  Babylonian,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  'Aruk  of  the  Roman  Rabbi  Nathan l. 

1  On  the  sojourn  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  the  author  of  the  "jnr,  in  Narbonne, 
comp.  Gross,  Gallia  Judaica,  409-10,  and  Geiger,  Heb.  BibL,  III,  4.     The 


30  THE    GEONIM 

On  one  point  Graetz  is  doubtless  right — in  assuming  that 
Rabbi  Nathan  wrote  his  account,  not  in  Babylonia,  but 
in  some  other  country,  the  Jewish  inhabitants  of  which 
he  wanted  to  enlighten  concerning  Babylonian  conditions. 
In  all  probability  the  country  in  which  the  Babylonian 
wrote  was  North  Africa.  His  account,  as  it  appears  in  the 
Yohasin,  and  also  in  the  Arabic  Genizah  fragment,  begins 
with  the  words :  "  This  is  what  the  Babylonian  Nathan, 
son  of  Isaac,  told  [=IDN,  'reported  by  word  of  mouth'], 
what  he  himself  partly  saw  and  what  he  partly  heard 
in  Babylonia,  relative  to  the  Exilarch  who  came  to  Africa, 
Ukba,  the  descendant  of  David."  Now,  only  a  small 
part  of  Nathan's  account  deals  with  Ukba,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why,  in  the  first  place,  Ukba 
should  be  named  as  the  hero  of  the  narrative,  but  par- 
ticularly why  it  should  have  been  stated  so  emphatically 
that  he  had  come  to  Africa,  a  circumstance  which  naturally 
comes  out  in  the  course  of  the  narrative.  It  is  therefore 
not  a  far-fetched  supposition,  that  this  Babylonian  Nathan 
himself  came  to  Africa,  and  the  Jews  there  questioned  him 
about  the  celebrated  exile  who  had  once  lived  in  their 
city,  for  at  Nathan's  arrival  he  was  probably  deceased. 

About  the  controversy  of  the  Exilarchs,  Nathan  could 
tell  them  but  a  few  facts  known  to  him  by  hearsay,  1"13D1 
nvpED.  It  had  happened  before  his  time,  or  at  least  in 
his  earliest  childhood.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  well 
versed  in  the  details  of  the  dispute  between  the  Gaon 
Kohen-Zedek  and  the  Exilarch  David,  and  again  between 
Rabbi  Saadia  and  the  same  Exilarch.  Therefore  he  passed 
adroitly  from  Ukba  to  his  successor.  The  description  of 
Ukba's  exile  serves  as  nothing  more  than  a  foil  and  intro- 
duction to  the  events  under  David.  That  he  began  his 
account  with  Ukba  shows  equal  astuteness,  for  Ukba  it 
was  who  interested  the  African  Jews  in  particular. 

name  Nathan  ha  Babli  was  probably  suggested  to  Zacuto  by  the  celebrated 
Tanna  of  the  same  nnme;  '\  '?N  fc,  ed.  Friedmann  is  taa  =  'ori,  R.  Joshua 
was  in  Rome,  comp.  Gittin,  58  a. 


THE    GAONATE  3! 

These  conjectures,  which  to  me  seem  obvious,  are  sup- 
ported by  a  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Mei'r  of  Rothenburg1. 
itray  *iy  i>"r  Kpnsso  fro  Yn  mi^ra  mro  'bv  owtan  nuuwn 
nmx  PS^TEI  2^n  Bnaoi  nono  nwirb  i^nnn&'D  ^>as  -urn  m  i:n: 
nniN  ^Kt?  V3  ^3  p-UD  13N — "In  my  collection  of  Responsa 
of  the  Geonim,  I  found  the  following  by  Rabbi  Nathan  of 
Africa :  Until  now  it  was  customary  to  permit  the  eating 
[of  butter  made  by  non-Jews],  but  since  they  have  begun 
to  bring  it  from  Hamath  and  Giscala,  where  it  is  adulter- 
ated [with  fat],  we  excommunicate  all  who  use  it." 

First  of  all,  we  are  here  introduced  to  an  African  scholar 
of  the  Geonic  time  by  the  name  of  Nathan.  One  is  tempted 
to  identify  him  with  the  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Rabbi  Hana- 
niah,  a  Responsum  by  whom  is  abstracted  (T"lN,  I,  176  b)  by 
Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Moses  of  Vienna,  the  teacher  of  Rabbi  Mei'r 
of  Rothenburg,  from  the  "African"  collection  niyxpon  'D,  pro- 
bably the  same  Geonic  collection  referred  to  by  Rabbi  Mei'r 
himself  in  his  mnien  ny£>,  193.  Muller  in  his  Mafteak  (157) 
assigns  this  Responsum  to  Rabbi  Nathan  Alluf,  the  uncle 
of  Rabbi  Sherira,  an  identification  that  cannot  hold  water, 
for  several  reasons.  With  the  exception  of  Rabbi  Hai,  who 
replied  to  a  number  of  questions  addressed  to  his  father,  by 
reason  of  the  advanced  age  of  the  latter,  there  is  not,  in 
the  whole  extent  of  Geonic  Responsa  literature,  a  single 
Responsum  by  an  Alluf2.  Besides,  Rabbi  Isaac  of  Vienna 
calls  the  author  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Hananiah,  and  the 
uncle  of  Sherira  was  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Judah.  Miiller's 
emended  reading,  rp::n  YIK,  instead  of  'n  '"H  nna,  cannot  be 
endorsed.  What  reason  can  there  be  for  designating  the 


1  Quoted  by  Rabbi  Aaron  of  Lunel  in  his  n"n  'rn«,  II,  333.  Rabbi 
Nathan,  whose  views  on  liturgical  questions  are  cited  very  frequently 
by  Rabbi  Aaron  in  the  first  part  of  his  work,  was,  as  appears  from 
'n  'rnr»,  I,  43  b  and  io6a  (bottom),  a  grandson  of  Rabbi  Azriel,  doubtless 
Rabbi  Azriel  ben  Nathan,  the  great-grandson  bearing  the  name  of  the 
great-grandfather.  Gross,  Gallia  Judaica,  contains  Rabbi  Azriel,  but  not 
his  grandson,  Rabbi  Nathan. 

*  For  details  comp.  above,  p.  7,  n.  i. 


32  THE    GEONIM 

son  and  brother  of  a  Gaon  as  the  brother  of  his  brother, 
instead  of  in  the  universal  way  as  the  son  of  his  father  ? 

We  have,  besides,  positive  and  explicit  evidence  regarding 
an  African  authority  by  the  name  of  Rabbi  Nathan  ben 
Hananiah.  Such  an  one  was  a  correspondent  of  Rabbi 
Natronai  Gaon,  as  we  learn  from  Rabbi  Samuel  Ibn 
(jama1,  and  also  of  the  Gaon's  younger  contemporary, 
Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Solomon,  the  chief  judge  of  the  Exil- 
arch2.  In  a  question  addressed  from  Kairwan  (fur, 
84  a,  3)  to  Rabbi  Zemah  [ben  Paltoi?],  Rabbi  Nathan 
and  Rabbi  Judah  are  characterised  as  "the  scholars  of 
Kairwan  V  In  another  Responsum  in  the  same  col- 
lection, i8b,  12,  the  sons  of  Rabbi  Nathan  are  referred 
to  in  a  letter  to  Rabbi  Saadia.  Moreover,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  Rabbi  Nathan  whose  opinions  are  cited 
in  three  passages  in  the  Seder  Rob  Amram  is  this  African 
Rabbi  Nathan,  and  not  the  uncle  of  Rabbi  Sherira  4. 

Nevertheless,  I  hesitate  greatly  to  identify  the  Rabbi 
Nathan  quoted  by  Rabbi  Mei'r  of  Rothenburg  with  the 
Kairwan  scholar  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Hananiah,  and  for  the 
following  reasons :  The  passage  about  the  butter  made  in 
Hamath  and  Giscala  by  no  manner  of  means  bears  the 
interpretation  that  butter  was  exported  from  Palestine 
to  Northern  Africa  in  the  ninth  century.  The  remark 
by  Rabbi  Nathan  becomes  intelligible  only  when  it  is 

1  In  Graetz,  Jubelschrift,  17. 

2  Dukes,  from  an  Oxford  MS.,  in  Ben  Chananjah,  IV,  142. 

3  This  passage  was  referred  to  by  Zunz,  Situs,   191,  and  he  properly 
identified  this  Rabbi  Judah  with  Rabbi  Judah  ben  Saul,  the  contemporary 
of  Rabbi  Nathan.    The  same  Rabbi  Judah  is  described  in  t'w,  II,  171  b. 
together  with  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Hananiah,  as  a  correspondent  of  Rabbi 
Natronai.     He  is  there  called  bistt?  '-\  '2  rmrr  'n ,  which  is  better,  it  seems, 
than  "JINC  'T  'i  rmrv  '-\  'a  mirr  'i,  in  Luzzatto's  is^n  rva,  109.     In  Rabbi 
Mei'r  of  Rothenburg's  n"r,  193,  he  is  also  called  Rabbi  Judah  ben  Saul. 
Is  ci"n  to  be  read  for  the  corrupt  CTD  in  Parties,  21  b  ? 

4  Comp.  below,  pp.  149-50.     In  this  Responsum  c'Tobn  does  not  mean 
young  students,  but,  according  to  the  general  usage  of  Arabic-speaking 
Jews,  prominent  scholars.     Comp.  Harkavy,  Saadia,  43,  note  5,  and  y"ic, 
3  a,  end. 


THE    G AGNATE  33 

brought  into  connexion  with  the  fact  that  in  Babylonia 
butter  made  by  non-Jews  was  considered  as  belonging  to 
the  forbidden  varieties  of  food,  though  it  was  permitted 
in  Palestine.  Hence  Rabbi  Nathan  reports  that  even  in 
Palestine  the  use  of  such  butter  was  prohibited,  since  it 
appeared  that  it  was  adulterated  in  Hamath  and  Giscala, 
being  mixed  there  with  forbidden  ingredients.  Whence 
this  specific  acquaintance  with  Palestinian  conditions  on 
the  part  of  Rabbi  Nathan  of  Kairwan  ?  If  we  were  to 
assume,  what  is  not  very  likely1,  that  the  Kairwan  scholars 
of  the  ninth  century  were  in  close  relations  with  those  of 
Palestine,  it  would  still  have  to  be  explained  what  occasion 
there  was  for  the  Palestinian  scholars  to  communicate  with 
the  Kairwan  scholars  regarding  the  custom  prevailing  in 
their  country. 

Thus  the  probabilities  multiply  for  identifying  Rabbi 
Nathan  of  Africa  with  the  Babylonian  Rabbi  Nathan,  the 
author  of  the  account  of  the  Academies.  This  Babylonian, 
who  must  have  reached  Africa  by  way  of  Palestine,  had 
to  satisfy  the  curiosity  of  his  African  fellow-Jews  and  a 
real  desire  for  knowledge  as  well.  The  scholar  from  foreign 
parts  on  the  one  hand  told  them  about  the  Exilarchs  and 
the  Geonim,  and  on  the  other  doubtful  ritual  cases  were 
referred  to  him,  such  as  that  in  the  Responsum  quoted 
above,  in  which  Rabbi  Nathan,  inclined  as  a  Babylonian 
to  agree  with  a  prohibition  forbidding  the  use  of  butter 
prepared  by  non-Jews,  strengthens  his  natural  inclination 
by  reference  to  the  fact  that  even  the  Palestinians,  ac- 
customed from  of  old  to  a  more  lenient  practice,  refrained 
from  eating  it  in  changed  circumstances2. 

1  Rabbi  Mei'r  of  Rothenburg  in  his  n*UJ,  193,  writes:  'i»airra  '3111x1 
bin  ':wan  ibsTTC  ....  s-pnDM  ronoo,  which  would  indicate  that  this  African 
Responsa  Collection  contained  decisions  only  by  Babylonian,  not  by 
Palestinian  authorities. 

3  On  the  use  of  such  butter,  comp.  the  Geonic  Responsa  in  D*n,  ip-ar, 
and  G.  S.,  p.  153,  according  to  which  the  prohibition  against  it  had  not 
always  been  recognised  even  in  Babylonia.  Comp.  also  Miiller,  r^fa 

rra,  16. 

I  D 


34  THE    GEONIM 

The  assumption  that  Rabbi  Nathan  was  an  oral  reporter 
on  Babylonian  conditions,  rather  than  an  author  who  re- 
corded his  reminiscences  in  writing,  would  reconcile  the 
differences  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic  version  of 
his  narrative.  The  question  as  to  the  original  language 
would  then  be  set  aside  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that 
the  two  versions  are  independent  of  each  other.  In  the 
Kairwan  audience  that  listened  to  Rabbi  Nathan,  some 
used  Hebrew  and  some  Arabic  in  their  literary  com- 
positions, and  thus  his  narrative  reached  us  through  the 
medium  of  two  languages. 

NATHAN  HA-BABLI  THE  SOURCE  FOR  THE  Two  REPORTS 

ABOUT   THE   BABYLONIAN   ACADEMIES. 

The  above  will  throw  light  for  us  upon  the  relation 
that  exists  between  Rabbi  Nathan's  narrative  proper  and 
the  piece  about  the  Babylonian  Academies  preceding  it. 
Graetz,  whose  view  is  espoused  by  Weiss  and  other 
scholars,  considers  Rabbi  Nathan  the  author  of  the  de- 
scription of  the  Babylonian  Academies  at  the  head  of  the 
narrative,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  is  the  author 
of  the  narrative  to  which  his  name  is  explicitly  attached. 
Halevy,  on  the  other  hand,  identifies  the  piece  about  the 
Academies  with  a  report  quoted  by  Zacuto  from  Rabbi 
Samuel  ha-Nagid's  Introduction  to  the  Talmud.  Graetz's 
historical  tact  stood  him  in  good  stead  here  as  so  often, 
while  Halevy  cannot  see  the  wood  for  the  trees.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  as  Halevy  properly  remarks,  that  the 
two  are  merely  versions  of  one  and  the  same  account ; 
and  also  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Samuel  ha-Nagid's 
document  goes  back  to  Rabbi  Nathan.  It  is  certain 
that  the  description  of  the  Babylonian  Academies  pre- 
ceding Rabbi  Nathan's  account  cannot  have  been  taken 
as  it  stands  from  Rabbi  Samuel's  Introduction,  which, 
Halevy  maintains,  seeing  that  it  contains  two  important 
points  missing  in  Rabbi  Samuel's — the  description  of  the 


THE    GAONATE  35 

"reception  Sabbath"  of  the  Exilarch,and  the  dispute  between 
the  Academies  regarding  the  division  of  the  revenues,  at 
the  time  of  Kohen-Zedek 1.  Halevy  (Dorot  ha-Rishonim, 
III,  363)  passes  the  first  point  over  in  silence,  and  with 
regard  to  the  second  he  maintains  that  it  dropped  out 
of  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid's  narrative  in  Yohasin  through 
an  oversight  of  the  copyist.  But  whence  could  Rabbi 
Samuel  Shulam,  the  editor  of  Zacuto's  Yohasin,  have 
supplied  the  passage  which  was  missing  in  his  model  1 2 
We  see  thus  that  not  only  is  the  account  transmitted  by 
Shulam  independent  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid's,  but  a 
comparison  of  the  linguistic  peculiarities  of  the  description 
of  the  Academies  with  those  of  the  narrative  proper  by 
Rabbi  Nathan  proves  beyond  the  peradventure  of  a  doubt 
that  they  have  the  same  origin.  For  instance,  in  both 
accounts  pN  is  used  in  the  meaning  of  city  (78,  5  ;  79,  31). 
The  statement  about  the  rights  of  the  Geonim  of  Sura 
during  an  interregnum  in  the  Exilarchate  is  the  same 
verbatim  in  Nathan's  narrative  proper  (86,  n,  below),  and 
in  the  description  of  the  Academies  preceding  it  (78,  15), 

1  The  following  point  forms  an  essential  difference  between  the  two 
narratives.     According  to  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid  it  was  a  question  of 
"parishes,"  nvvm,  those  under  Sura  being  twice  as  large  originally  as 
those  under   Pumbedita.     But  according  to  the  account  published  by 
Shulam,   it  was  a  question  of  the  donations,  which  were  put  into  a 
common  fund  for  the  Academies,  two-thirds  being  allotted  originally 
to  Sura  and  one-third  to  Pumbedita.    The  rather  indefinite  expression 
in  Shulam's  report,  D'pSn  w  nVDi: ,  was  misunderstood  by  Rabbi  Samuel 
ha-Nagid,  who  took  the  nvren  of  the  previous  sentence  as  the  subject. 
This  view  is  proved  incorrect  by  the  words  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  WTO  no  to . 

2  Halevy  might  have  learnt  from  Coronel's  introduction  to  the  meort 
D'cmcnip  that  the  MS.  of  this  report  used  by  Neubauer  for  his  edition 
had   been   written   in   1509,   while   Shulam  published   the    Yohasin   at 
Constantinople  only  in  1566.    On  the  MSS.  of  this  report  comp.  Marx, 
in  Z.H.B.,  V,  57-8,  and  IX,  140.     Steinschneider,  in  Geschichisliteratur,  21, 
likewise  entertains  the  supposition  that  Shulam's  report  goes  back  to 
Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid.     It  need  not  be  said  that  the  great  historian 
was  too  circumspect  to  assume,  as  Halevy  does,  that  Shulam  had  simply 
copied  Rabbi  Samuel's  narrative  from  Zacuto.     He  is  of  the  opinion  that 
the  source  made  use  of  by  Shulam  is  traceable  to  Rabbi  Samuel's  Intro- 
duction, which,  however,  as  has  been  shown,  is  equally  unwarranted. 

D  2 


36  THE    GEONIM 

while  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid  has  the  somewhat  pompous 
expression  iD^iy  rvu^  nta  £>xn  IDB^DI  for  nta  ^N"i  nic%  and 
in  the  same  sentence  he  uses  niKSjnn  niB>n  for  the  lh?  nwnn 
13ni*  of  the  other  two  sources. 

But  as,  on  the  other  hand,  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid's 
presentation  in  the  main  agrees  literally  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Academies  preceding  Rabbi  Nathan's  report, 
we  are  safe  in  assuming  that  Rabbi  Nathan  is  the  source 
for  both.  The  development  must  have  been  thus  :  Rabbi 
Samuel,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Talmud,  where  he  had 
to  speak  of  the  two  Academies,  abstracted  Rabbi  Nathan's 
account,  which  may  have  come  under  his  notice  through 
the  Jews  of  Kairwan,  with  whom,  it  is  well  known,  he 
was  in  constant  communication1.  Another  author,  who 
had  heard  Nathan's  account  from  his  own  mouth,  tried 
to  make  up  a  brief  sketch  of  the  Academies.  He  gave 
a  few  facts  regarding  their  origin  at  the  time  of  the 
Amoraim,  and  then,  to  lend  his  compilation  an  air  of 
completeness,  he  eked  out  Nathan's  report  by  the  addition, 
at  the  beginning,  of  a  chronology  from  Adam  to  David, 
the  last  of  the  Exilarchs,  taken  from  the  Seder  'Olam 
Zutta.  According  to  the  notions  prevailing-  in  the  Middle 
Ages  as  to  literary  practices,  this  compiler,  who  patched 
together  three  pieces  from  three  different  sources,  deserved 
the  name  author,  and,  without  burdening  his  conscience,  he 
could  maintain  silence  regarding  the  sources  used  by  him. 
This  "opus"  he  made  the  introduction  to  the  narrative-which 
he  had  taken  down  from  the  mouth  of  Nathan,  honestly 
introducing  it  with  the  words  "  and  what  Nathan  said 2." 

1  Even  his  questions  addressed  to  the  Babylonian  Geonim  were  trans- 
mitted by  the  Kairwan  scholars ;  comp.  Harkavy,  107.  The  literal 
agreement  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid's  report  with  Rabbi  Nathan's 
disposes  of  the  theory  that  the  former  made  use  of  Ibn  Hofni's  Intro- 
duction to  the  Talmud. 

8  In  his  mm'  Eac,  §  42,  Ibn  Verga  quotes  a  report  on  the  installation 
of  an  Exilarch  from  D':ncwi  D'aiw  rvniicn,  which  seems  to  be  independent 
of  Rabbi  Nathan's,  while  the  passage  about  the  Exilarch  Ukba,  in  Rabbi 
Abraham  ben  Nathan's  Manhig,  32  a,  probably  goes  back  to  Nathan. 


THE    GAONATE  37 


THE  SUPREMACY  OP  SURA. 

We  return  to  our  starting-point.  The  relation  of  the 
two  Academies  to  each  other,  and  their  relation  to  the 
Exilarch,  can  in  a  measure  be  defined  now.  Rabbi  Samuel 
ha-Nagid,  as  well  as  the  anonymous  author  in  Shulam, 
who,  as  we  have  seen,  is  none  other  than  Rabbi  Nathan 
the  Babylonian,  are  explicit  upon  the  subject.  Originally, 
the  head  of  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  could  be  appointed 
only  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Gaon  of  Sura.  If  the 
heads  of  the  two  Academies  met  anywhere,  the  Gaon  of 
Sura  was  given  the  precedence.  This  was  particularly 
marked  when  they  paid  their  respects  to  the  Exilarch  on 
his  "reception  Sabbath."  In  their  correspondence,  the 
head  of  Pumbedita  had  to  address  "  the  Gaon  and  the 
scholars  of  Sura,"  while  the  head  of  Sura  wrote  simply 
"  to  the  scholars  of  Pumbedita."  In  case  the  Exilarchate 
had  no  incumbent  temporarily,  its  revenues  fell  to  the 
share  of  the  Gaon  of  Sura.  Sura  received  two  parts  of 
the  donations  contributed  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
Babylonian  Academies,  and  Pumbedita  but  one  part. 
This  fiscal  arrangement  was  changed  in  926,  under  the 
Gaonate  of  Kohen-Zedek1,  when  Pumbedita  was  made 
equal  sharer  with  Sura,  on  account  of  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  disciples  in  the  former  Academy. 

On  the  basis  of  these  facts,  Graetz  properly  makes  the 
assertion  that/6riginally  the  title  Gaon  was  the  prerogative 
of  the  head  of  the  Academy  at  Sura,  the  Gaonate  not 
being  a  duumvirate,  but  an  institution  with  a  single  chief, 
and  its  origin  must  be  explained  with  these  facts  in  mind. 
In  opposition  to  this  sane  view  Halevy  (p.  151  et  seq.) 
puts  up  a  theory,  which  sets  forth  that  in  the  Geonic 

1  There  is  not  the  remotest  warrant  for  supposing  that  Kohen-Zcd«k, 
the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  was  here  confused  with  his  namesake  of  Sura. 
The  important  change  in  favour  of  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  could 
naturally  not  have  been  connected  with  the  name  of  the  Gaon  of  Sura. 


38  THE    GEONIM 

time  Pumbedlta  held  the  leading  place,  and  the  above- 
mentioned  privileges  of  Sura  applied  to  the  time  of  the 
Amoraim,  probably  of  Rab  Ashi,  with  but  few  exceptions 
not  being  in  force  in  the  Geonic  time.  But  how,  in  the 
name  of  common  sense,  can  it  be  said  that  the  claim 
upon  the  larger  share  in  the  donations  to  the  Academies 
appertains  to  Talmudic  times  ?  We  know  from  Talmudic 
data  (Grittin,  60  b)  that  the  revenues  of  the  Academies 
consisted  of  voluntary  contributions  deposited  in  boxes, 
which  were  put  up  for  this  purpose  in  the  house  of  the 
head  of  the  Academy.  We  should  be  accusing  Rab  Ashi 
of  highway  robbery  pure  and  simple,  if  we  supposed  that 
he  ordered  the  removal  of  two-thirds  of  the  contents  of 
the  box  at  Pumbedita  to  the  coffers  of  Sura.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  defend  the  great  leaders  of  the  Jews  against 
such  charges.  Halevy,  in  particular,  has  no  ground  under 
his  feet  when  he  relegates  the  privileges  of  Sura  to  Tal- 
mudic times  (p.  263),  because  he  gives  the  preference  to 
Rabbi  Samuel's  version,  which  bases  the  distribution  of 
the  moneys  between  the  two  Academies  upon  the  parish 
divisions  for  judicial  purposes  \  and  such  divisions,  it  is 
well  known,  did  not  exist  in  the  Talmudic  time,  as  the 
appointment  of  communal  officers  was  in  the  hands  of 
the  Exilarch. 

Besides,  as  applied  to  the  Talmudic  epoch,  what  does 
it  mean  to  say  that  the  head  of  the  Sura  Academy  was 
addressed  as  Gaon  by  his  colleague  ?  Even  if  Gaon  is  not 
taken  literally,  but  as  an  equivalent  for  NmTiD  B*"I,  it  is 
not  a  term  used  in  the  Talmudic  period  in  addressing  a 
scholar,  wan  and  man  are  the  titles  applied  to  scholars 
in  that  time2.  The  parts  assigned  to  the  heads  of  the 
Academies  on  the  "reception  Sabbath"  of  the  Exilarch 
are  altogether  incongruous  with  the  time  of  Rab  Ashi, 
about  whom  we  are  told  explicitly  that  the  Exilarch  Huna 

1  Comp.  above,  p.  35,  n.  i. 

3  Ketubot,  69  a,  pin ;  Shebu'ot,  36  a,  im ;  comp.  also  Hullin,  95  b,  Dip 
i:-an  mb ....  ir.i. 


THE    GAONATE  39 

ben  Nathan  subordinated  himself  to  him  (Gittin,  59  a), 
while  in  the  narratives  under  examination,  the  respect 
shown  the  Exilarchs  by  the  Geonim  is  dwelt  upon  in 
unmistakable  words. 

However,  Halevy  adduces  reasons  for  his  opinion,  that 
the  prerogatives  of  Sura  do  not  apply  to  the  Geonic  time. 
And  astonishing  reasons  they  are !  From  the  letter  of 
Sherira  we  know  that  two  scholars  of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi 
Samuel  and  Rabbi  Jehudai,  occupied  the  Gaonate  of  Sura1. 
The  reverse  situation  is  not  mentioned  as  a  fact.  But,  as 
Dr.  Elbogen  justly  says,  "  Lack  of  knowledge  on  our  part 
is  not  a  counter-argument "  (Die  neueste  Construction  der 
judischen  Geschickte,  33).  Sherira,  belonging  to  Pumbedita, 
was  particularly  proud  of  the  distinction  that  fell  to  the  lot 
of  two  members  of  his  own  Academy,  and  records  it  with 
great  satisfaction.  On  the  other  hand,  he  had  absolutely  no 
occasion  to  report  the  appointment  of  scholars  from  Sura 
at  Pumbedita.  Quite  apart  from  this  consideration,  the 
installation  of  scholars  from  Pumbedita  at  Sura  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question  before  us.  On  the  contrary,  from 
the  fact  that  the  greatest  scholars  of  Pumbedita  were 
invited  to  Sura,  we  might  justly  infer  that  Sura  excelled 
the  other  Academy  in  importance  and  dignity,  and  there- 
fore those  of  Pumbedita  regarded  their  appointment  as  a 
distinction.  The  right  of  veto  in  connexion  with  the 
appointment  of  a  new  Gaon  in  Pumbedita,  which  the 
sources  mention  as  a  privilege  of  the  Sura  Gaonate,  does 
not  affect  the  question  as  to  whether,  in  the  course  of 
centuries,  two  or  three  scholars  hailing  from  Pumbedita 
were  installed  in  office  at  Sura. 

For  the  rest,  it  can  be  demonstrated  from  Sherira's 
Letter  itself  that  scholars  of  Sura  occupied  the  Gaonate 
of  Pumbedita.  An  extraordinary  circumstance,  to  which 
no  attention  has  been  paid  hitherto,  is  that  Sherira  notes 

1  Halevy  might  have  added  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni,  for  he  was 
a  grandson  of  the  Pumbeditan  Gaon  Kohen-Zedek,  and  assuredly  belonged 
to  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita. 


40  THE    GEONIM 

the  provenance  of  only  three  of  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita1. 
They  are  Rabbi  Natronai,  of  Bagdad,  Rabbi  Isaiah  of 
WBKOT,  a  suburb  of  Bagdad,  and  the  successor  of  the  latter, 
Rabbi  Joseph  of  vb®  or  vhv.  It  is,  of  course,  inconceivable 
that  the  rest  of  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita,  as  many  as 
three  dozen,  should  all  have  hailed  from  Pumbedita  itself; 
or  that  Rabbi  Sherira  should  be  ignorant  of  their  pro- 
venance. Rabbi  Hai,  for  instance,  reports  that  the  Gaon 
of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Hai  ben  David,  had  been  active, 
before  his  accession  to  office,  as  judge  in  Bagdad2,  and 
what  the  son  knew  the  father  could  surely  not  have  been 
ignorant  of,  and  yet  Rabbi  Sherira  does  not  mention  the 
fact  that  Rabbi  Hai  ben  David's  home  was  in  Bagdad. 

This  striking  peculiarity  can  be  explained  only  upon  the 
assumption  that  Rabbi  Sherira  adopted  the  system  of 
mentioning  the  provenance  of  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita 
only  when  they  were  members,  not  of  the  Academy  of 
Pumbedita  itself,  but  of  Sura — an  assumption  that  rises 
to  the  degree  of  certainty  when  we  remember  that  Bagdad 
and  Sura  are  close  to  each  other3.  The  addition  of  the 
words  "  of  Bagdad  "  to  the  name  of  a  Gaon,  is  tantamount 
to  calling  him  a  member  of  the  Academy  of  Sura.  It  turns 
out,  too,  that  not  only  Rabbi  Natronai,  of  Bagdad,  and 
Rabbi  Isaiah,  of  nxta4,  are  to  be  reckoned  among  the 

1  Of  course,  1  do  not  take  into  consideration  the  Geonim  who  were 
in  active  life  before  or  about  689.     Rabbi  Sherira  himself  was  not  always 
prepared  to  give  unexceptionable  information  regarding  this  early  Geonic 
time,  and  therefore  he  would  take  good  care  to  add  any  detail  he  might 
happen  to  know.     The  characterisation  of  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Manasseh  ben 
Joseph  as  ro'py  '3  ':n  p  Nin  rwaiai  is  unintelligible ;  probably  the  passage 
is  corrupt. 

2  Ibn  Gajat,  ir'c,  I,  63. 

3  The  distance  between  these  two  places  can  be  determined  with  a  fair 
degree  of  accuracy.     Al-Kasr,  a  suburb  of  Bagdad,  the  original  home  of 
the  Exilarch  David  ben   Zakkai,   was   six  miles  from   Sura,   according 
to  other  readings  seven,  and  even  ten  miles,  the  variations  being  based 
upon  the  resemblance  of  the  letters  1*1"'  to  one  another.   '  Comp.  Prof. 
Nflldeke  in  J.  Q.  B.,  XVII,  760,  note  3. 

*  Wallerstein's  text  even  has  nuab  NJifOT  N'cnm  xnc  mn 


THE    GAONATE  4! 

scholars  of  Sura,  but  even  Rabbi  Joseph,  of  *&{?,  which, 
as  we  learn  from  Talmudic  references,  is  situated  close 
to  Sura l. 

As  for  the  supposition  ventured  above,  that  the  suc- 
cessor of  Kabbi  Natronai  was  his  brother  Rabbi  Abraham 
Kahana,  the  proof  can  be  adduced,  that  he  is  the  sole  and 
only  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  in  the  period  after  689,  whose 
name  is  not  linked  with  his  father's.  The  natural  ex- 
planation is  that,  being  the  successor  to  his  brother,  the 
father's  name  appeared  in  connexion  with  his  predecessor's, 
and  hence  there  was  no  need  to  repeat  it.  We  should, 
therefore,  be  justified  in  putting  Rabbi  Abraham  Kahana 
among  the  members  of  Sura  who  occupied  the  Gaonate 
of  Pumbedita.  For  my  part,  I  should  he  inclined  to 
classify  Rabbi  Paltoi  in  the  same  way,  for  the  reason  that 
he  refers  (Miiller,  p.  88)  to  a  custom  in  ^33  hv  mn  rvo,  the 
venerable  old  synagogue  which  Rab  had  founded  in  Sura, 
and  the  scholars  hailing  from  Sura  were  the  only  ones 
who  made  reference  to  this  institution  2. 

1  Berliner,  Beitrdge  zur  Geographic  und  Ethnographic  Babyloniens,  33,  note  I, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  ^u?  must  be  looked  for  in  the  vicinity  of  Sura 
or  Pumbedita.    But  Baba  Batra,  1723,  shows,  as  the  Tosafists  noticed, 
that  it  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Rabbi  Huna's  place  of  residence,  that 
is,  Sura.     In  other  passages,  too,  it  occurs  only  in  connexion  with  Rabbi 
Huna's  presence  in  Sura.     Comp.  Bezah,  25  b  ;  Baba  Mezia,  63  b,  does  not 
indicate,  as  Rashi  thinks,  that  Rabbah  and  Rabbi  Joseph  lived  close 
to  >!«5.    Their  dwelling-place  was  Pumbedita,   which  may   have  been 
a  day's  journey  from  'To.    The  real  meaning  of  the  passage  is  that  great 
traffic  in  wheat  was  carried  on  there,  therefore  it  was  denominated 
a  wheat  centre.     If  Rabbi  Sherira,  30,   12,  speaks  of  Rabbi  Nahman's 
having  been  in   «nnm   T\bc,   he   means  that  after  the   destruction   of 
Nehardea  he  first  repaired  to  Ttte,  and  then  betook  himself  to  Maho/a 
in  the  vicinity  of  Pumbedita.   Keeping  in  mind  the  well-known  tendency 
of  the  Babylonians  to  eliminate  the  letters  n  and  n,  the  spelling  '"HC  for 
Tibc  need  not  astonish  us  ;  comp.  Funk,  Juden  in  Babylonien,  155,  160. 

2  Rapoport,  in  p'ro  -py,   142,  has  the  proper  explanation  of  the  ex- 
pression so  frequently  used  by  the  Geonim,  boaaw  irm  rva,   or  briefly 
i:'m  rva,  an  explanation  that  I  had  myself  hit  upon  independently  of 
Rapoport,  and  communicated  to  Professor  Alexander  Marx,  who  indorses 
it  in  his   Untersuchungen,  &c.,  n.     It  was  only  later,  while  engaged  in 
the    present    investigation,   that   I   discovered   it   in    the    j'to    "py,   to 


42  THE    GEONIM 

If  it  is  at  all  proper  to  constitute  the  appointment  of 
members  of  one  Academy  to  the  Gaonate  of  the  other  as 

•which  I  here  give  credit  for  it.  Rapoport  points  out  that  the  academy 
and  synagogue  of  Rab  were  so  called  in  the  Talmud,  Megillah,  293. 
Halevy  (p.  105)  has  managed  to  misunderstand  Rapoport's  words 
entirely.  He  had  no  idea  of  asserting  that  in  the  Geonic  time  taiatzj  i*a 
meant  the  Sura  Academy,  seeing  that  it  occurs  almost  always  in  con- 
nexion with  the  rrmu»  vro.  What  Rapoport  did  say  is,  that  in  Talmudic 
times  the  expression  was  applied  to  the  academy  and  the  synagogue 
of  Rab,  but  later  only  to  Rab's  synagogue.  The  change  has  a  good 
reason.  To  replace  the  academy  erected  by  Rab,  his  disciple  Rabbi 
Hisda  (Rabbi  Sherira,  Letter,  30,  16)  built  a  new  and  apparently  a  larger 
structure  somewhere  near  it.  With  the  disuse  of  the  old  building  for 
academic  purposes,  the  old  name  ivn  n'a  ceased  to  be  employed  for  the 
Sura  Academy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  building  erected  by  Rab  was 
used  as  a  synagogue  (Baba  Batra,  sb)  until  the  time  of  Rab  Ashi 
(according  to  some,  Mar  bar  Ashi ;  comp.  Rabbinovicz,  ad  loc.),  and  the 
name  taoatj  irn  iva  was  retained  for  it,  even  after  Rab  Ashi  rebuilt  it. 
It  is  this  synagogue  that  continued  to  be  called  "main  irn  rva  down 
to  and  in  the  time  of  the  Geonim.  The  fact  that  it  had  been  remodelled 
by  Rab  Ashi  justifies  Nahmanides  (quoted  by  v>"tr\,  end  of  Rosh  ha-Shanah) 
in  saying  of  the  Geonim  that  "  they  prayed  in  his  [Rab  Ashi's]  synagogue." 
Halevy  (II,  594)  maintains  that  the  yi  '31  Nrrana  rebuilt  by  Rab  Ashi  was 
not  the  synagogue  of  Rab  in  Sura,  but  a  place  of  worship  frequented 
by  the  scholars  of  N'cno  MHO.  But  though  he  is  right  in  taking  Sura 
and  N'DITO  sna  to  be  two  separate  places,  as  was  proved  long  before  him 
by  Hirschensohn,  moan  MTD,  s.v.,  and  by  Berliner,  Beitrage,  &c.,  45,  yet 
there  is  no  doubt  that  each  of  the  two  names  was  sometimes  applied 
indiscriminately  to  both  places  together.  The  epithet  im  applied  to 
Rab  in  the  Geonic  time  occurs  in  the  Genizah  fragment  published  in 
the  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  403,  in  Harkavy  (253),  and  in  the  MS.  of  Ibn  Hofni's 
"Introduction."  Halevy's  conjecture,  that  -urn  rm  was  the  Exilarch's 
synagogue  at  Bagdad,  fails  to  recommend  itself  for  various  reasons.  It  is 
true  the  Exilarchs  had  their  private  synagogue  ;  comp.  the  report  in  Ibn 
Yerga,  42.  But  in  the  first  place,  the  Exilarchs  are  never  called  irn, 
and  in  the  second  place,  the  synagogue  in  Bagdad,  in  which  the 
Geonim  worshipped  and  preached  on  the  vhjm  «rac,  had  a  name  of 
its  own,  nbtc:  ~u  'aT  unurna,  as  Rabbi  Sherira  tells  us  explicitly,  38,  6. 
If  it  is  argued  that  Rabbi  Sherira  is  here  speaking  of  a  single  definite 
time  when  the  Geonim  worshipped  in  this  synagogue,  then  the  proper 
inference  from  the  passage  is  that  the  Exilarchs  had  no  synagogue  set 
apart  as  theirs,  else  it  would  have  to  be  explained  why  they  did  not 
worship  in  it  on  this  occasion.  Rapoport  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  Sura  Geonim  are  the  only  ones  who  speak  of  the  synagogue  "mas?  '~\  % 
and  I  shall  attempt  to  give  an  approximately  complete  enumeration  of 


THE    GAONATE  43 

a  standard  of  superiority,  we  now  have  further  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  pre-eminence  of  Sura  in  the  five  names 
of  scholars  of  Sura  who  acted  as  Geonim  in  Pumbedita, 
as  against  the  two  from  Pumbedita  who  officiated  similarly 
in  Sura,  aside  from  the  fact  that  the  appointment  of  the 


the  passages  in  which  it  is  mentioned  :  '"fi ,  go,  Rabbi  Natronai  =  n*c,  55  ; 
j*n,  125,  Rabbi  Zemah,  this  being  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Hayyiin  of  Sura, 
not  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Paltoi  of  Pumbedita,  for  he  quotes  the  Sura 
Geonim  Rabbi  Jacob  and  Rabbi  Hanina.  The  same  Rabbi  Zemah  is 
the  author  of  the  Responsum  in  E*n,  187,  where  a  certain  usage  of  i*a 
aa'tD  is  referred  to.  By  many  Poskim  it  is  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Zemah 
ben  Paltoi.  However,  it  can  be  proved  that  it  is  the  Suran  Rabbi 
Zemah.  While  the  Suran  Geonim  Rabbi  Natronai  and  Rabbi  Amram 
agree  with  Rabbi  Zemah,  Rabbi  Hai  (Ibn  Gajat,  «j*c,  II,  109,  and 
others)  states  that  he  had  never  seen,  in  any  synagogue,  the  custom 
described  by  Rabbi  Zemah.  The  difference  of  opinion  can  be  explained 
only  by  the  fact  that  the  custom  of  Pumbedita  varied  from  that  in  Sura 
in  this  as  in  so  many  other  respects.  To  continue  our  enumeration  : 
n*«?,  220,  Rabbi  Natronai,  who  shares  with  the  Sura  Gaon  Sar  Shalom 
the  peculiarity  of  using  the  expression  oftener  than  others,  comp. 
Albargeloni,  CTiyn  'D,  172,  173,  174,  249,  281,  289;  'Aruk,  s.v.  -u;  brViir, 
50  =  J?*TC,  25  a,  according  to  the  readings  of  MSS.  S  and  O  ;  also  bn'ac,  49, 
where  the  Responsum  quoted  is  by  Rabbi  Natronai ;  see  below,  p.  192. 
The  passages  listed  by  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.,  from  the  Seder  Rob 
Amram  probably  go  back  to  these  two  Geonim  also.  The  Responsum 
given  in  6.  S.,  p.  91,  where  aa'tt  -Ta  occurs,  in  all  probability  owns  Sar 
Shalom  as  author,  the  next  Responsum  but  one  being  attributed  to  him 
elsewhere,  as  I  remark  in  G.  S.,  p.  90.  The  Responsum  on  p.  119,  which 
mentions  1*3,  is  surely  by  Rabbi  Natronai.  In  OI'DJ,  122,  the  text  should 
probably  read,  not  jm  ba?  nvo'33  vuai,  but  with  Albargeloni,  I.e.,  281, 
irn  to  ncian  rvaai.  In  n*c,  287,  near  the  end,  the  text  is  altogether 
corrupt :  the  words  rrop  wrn:  -pi  "mate  wn  ION  om  are  unintelligible. 
Perhaps  what  we  have  here  is  an  extract  from  a  Responsum  by  a 
European  or  African  disciple  of  Rabbi  Hai,  who  calls  his  teacher  iran 
baaatc.  The  words  in  CTID,  46  b,  bottom,  are  also  to  be  traced  back  to 
the  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Hayyiin  just  mentioned,  in  which 
the  use  of  baaaw  Va  is  spoken  of.  The  decision  cited  in  bn'ac,  156 
(=  M'2n,  83),  in  the  name  of  Rashi  is  found  in  DTIE,  47 b,  end,  and 
in  D*n,  187,  whence  also  the  aa*TD  Va  in  "?n*3C  and  »<:n,  Rabbi  Natronai 
being  the  author.  This  array  of  material  should  suffice  to  convince 
the  inquirer  that  i:'n  rva  must  have  been  a  synagogue  in  Sura,  and  that 
in  turn  should  suffice  to  identify  it  with  the  iraT  rva  of  the  Talmud,  the 
synagogue  of  Rab.  Comp.  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.,  10-12. 


44  THE    GEONIM 

scholars  of  Pumbedita  to  Sura  may  probably  be  ascribed 
to  the  autocratical  interference  of  an  Exilarch l. 

In  his  eagerness  to  carry  through  consistently  his  theory 
of  the  pre-eminence  of  Pumbedita  as  compared  with  Sura, 
Halevy  actually  turns  a  scientific  somersault.  Only  by 
violent  means  could  he  arrive  at  the  desired  result  of 
reversing  the  true  relation  between  the  two  Academies. 
He  maintained,  for  instance  (p.  159),  that  the  precedence 
accorded  the  Gaon  of  Sura  at  the  "  reception  Sabbath " 
of  the  Exilarch,  of  which  the  sources  tell  us,  is  due  to 
the  circumstance  that  the  seat  of  the  Exilarch  was  near 
Sura,  and  it  was  natural  that  first  place  should  be  ceded 
the  Gaon  of  Sura  in  his  own  judicature.  But  unluckily 
Halevy  himself  quotes  a  passage  (p.  154)  from  Sherira  in 
which  the  fact  is  stated  that  the  address  at  one  of  the 
receptions  of  the  Exilarch  in  Bagdad  TO"i  rtan  was  de- 
livered by  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  and  if  the  heads  of  the 
Sura  Academy  could  lay  claim  to  precedence  anywhere, 
it  was  surely  in  Bagdad,  which,  as  Halevy  himself  remarks, 
is  situated  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Sura. 

In  point  of  fact,  the  passage  in  Sherira  from  which 
Halevy  draws  support  for  his  theory  is  indisputable 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  superiority  of  Sura.  Sherira 
maintains  (33,  13)  that  the  regulation,  originating  in  the 
time  of  Rab  Ashi,  according  to  which  the  Exilarch  held 
his  reception  at  Sura,  whither  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita  had 
to  betake  himself,  was  abolished  during  the  Exilarchate 
of  David  ben  Judah.  The  reason  was,  as  Graetz  correctly 
remarks,  that  the  Mohammedan  government  no  longer  put 
its  powerful  assistance  at  the  disposal  of  the  Exilarchate. 
From  this  time  on,  therefore,  if  the  Exilarchs  desired  to 
keep  in  touch  with  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita,  they  had 
no  choice  but  to  betake  themselves  in  person  to  Pumbedita 
and  arrange  for  reception  ceremonies  there. 

But  this  statement  is  contradicted  by  two  other  pas- 
sages, one  in  Nathan  ha-Babli's  account,  and  one  in 

1  Comp.  the  words  of  Rabbi  Sherira.  36,  bottom,  and  37,  5. 


THE    GAONATE  45 

Sherira's  Letter  itself.  Nathan  ha-Babli  says  that  so  late 
as  his  own  time  the  two  Geonim  waited  upon  the  Exilarch 
at  his  reception,  which  took  place  in  the  residence  of  the 
Exilarch,  a  suburb  of  Bagdad.  Sherira,  again,  mentions 
the  fact  (38,  6),  that  Eabbi  Abraham  and  Rabbi  Joseph, 
Geonim  of  Pumbedita,  went  to  Bagdad  to  wait  upon  the 
Exilarch. 

These  contradictions  can  be  harmonised.  The  preroga- 
tive enjoyed  by  the  Exilarch,  of  summoning  the  Geonim 
of  Pumbedita  to  Sura  for  the  reception,  was  at  the  same 
time  a  prerogative  of  the  Sura  Academy.  Thus  the 
interests  of  the  Exilarchate,  in  aiming  to  abrogate  the 
institution,  coincided  with  those  of  the  Pumbedita  Gaonate. 
As  the  first  step  towards  their  end  the  Exilarchs  trans- 
ferred their  reception  to  Bagdad,  their  residence.  The 
Geonim  of  Pumbedita  were  only  too  well  pleased  with 
the  change,  and  hastened  to  pay  their  respects  to  the 
Exilarch  at  Bagdad.  The  Geonim  of  Sura,  on  the  other 
hand,  hung  back  for  a  while,  appealing  to  their  time- 
honoured  right,  which  required  the  presence  of  the 
Exilarch  at  Sura. 

This  throws  light  upon  Sherira's  passage  mentioning 
the  address  delivered  by  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Exilarch' s  gala  day.  The  chiefs  of  the 
Sura  Academy  simply  absented  themselves,  and  the  privi- 
lege of  delivering  the  address  naturally  devolved  upon 
the  Gaon  present,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita.  In  the  course 
of  time,  in  the  measure  in  which  the  Academy  at 
Pumbedita  gained  in  strength,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
Exilarchate  declined,  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita  also  be- 
came derelict,  and  did  not  appear  to  attest  their  allegiance 
to  the  Exilarchs.  Interested  in  describing  only  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end  of  the  development  of  the  relations 
between  the  Gaonate  and  the  Exilarchate,  Sherira  had  no 
intention  of  speaking  about  anything  except  the  old 
institution  of  the  Exilarch's  reception  at  Sura  and  the 
late  custom  prevailing  in  his  youth,  when  the  Exilarchs 


46  THE    GEONIM 

came  to  Pumbedita.  These  questions  of  etiquette  naturally 
were  determined  by  the  relation  of  the  Exilarch  to  the 
Geonim  at  a  given  time,  and — a  still  more  important 
consideration — by  the  influence  which  the  Exilarch  could 
bring  to  bear  upon  the  government.  Some  years  after 
the  reception  of  the  Exilarch  is  known  to  have  taken 
place  at  Bagdad,  we  find  again  a  reference  to  an  Exilarch 
who  restores  the  old  prerogative  to  Sura1.  It  may,  of 
course,  not  be  overlooked  that  at  that  moment  the  Gaon 
of  Sura  was  Sar  Shalom,  a  son-in-law  of  the  Exilarch, 
whose  predilection  for  Sura  thus  appears  most  natural 2. 
In  his  reference  to  the  homage  done  the  Exilarchs  by  the 
Geonim,  Nathan  ha-Babli  probably  had  conditions  in  mind 
as  they  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Exilarch  David  ben 
Judah,  who,  to  judge  from  our  data  about  him,  was  a  man 
likely  to  exact  as  a  right  the  consideration  due  to  the 
Exilarchs,  if  need  be  by  resort  to  the  help  of  the  state. 
Under  him,  doubtless,  the  Geonim  found  it  expedient  to  pay 
their  respects  to  the  Exilarch,  if  not  annually,  at  least 
now  and  then,  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

THE  TITLE  GAON  ORIGINALLY  THE  PBEROGATIVE  OP 
SURA. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Sherira,  so  far  from  maintaining 
that  Pumbedita  had  precedence  over  Sura,  can  be  cited 
as  a  witness  for  the  correctness  of  Nathan  ha-Babli's  state- 
ment of  the  reverse.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  read  the 
text  critically. 

The  assertion  made  by  Nathan,  that  the  title  Gaon 
originally  appertained  to  the  chief  of  the  Sura  Academy 
alone,  is  corroborated  strikingly  by  the  following  Re- 
sponsum,  unique  in  its  way,  sent  by  the  Sura  chief  to 

1  j"n,  4 ;  the  author  is  Sar  Shalom ;  comp.  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  566,  and 
MS.  Sulzberger  of  the  Seder  Rob  Amram  in  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.,  16. 

a  Comp.  Rabbi  Hai's  Responsum  in  the  appendix  to  Rabbi  Sherira's 
Letter,  ed.  Mayence,  p.  63.  The  Responsum  was  known  to  the  author 
of  the  Tur,  as  appears  from  Tur,  Hoshen  Mishpat,  7. 


THE    GAONATE  47 

the  Pumbedita  chief.  The  mere  fact  that  the  Gaon  of 
Sura  transmits  a  decision  to  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  suffices 
to  demonstrate  the  superiority  of  the  former  as  compared 
with  the  latter.  Every  remnant  of  doubt  must  be  banished 
by  the  official  superscription.  The  Responsum  in  question 
has  been  preserved  in  DTia  (28  a),  in  the  MS.  of  the  n^atn  l 
and  in  JJIir  "I1K  (I,  ii4b).  It  contains  the  decision  of  the 
Sura  Gaon,  Rabbi  Jacob  ben  Mordecai  (801-815),  addressed 
to  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita,  presided  over  by  Rabbi 
Joseph  ben  Shila,  with  the  attestation  to  the  signature 
of  the  Gaon  on  the  part  of  the  Sura  scholars  in  these 
words2:  Trial  n^ono  xncn  Nrawi  *nan  wonpf)  pawn  toro 
nta>  warn  JMIOT  ma  tmaviD  e>n  sjw  an  n»n  jun  <a!>  NSH 
— "  This  document  [of  Rabbi  Jacob]  was  seen  by  us,  the 
scholars  of  the  Academy  at  Mehassia,  and  it  is  intended  for 
the  court  of  justice  of  the  chief  of  the  Academy,  Rabbi 
Joseph  ben  Rabbi  Shila."  This  official  superscription 
confirms  the  statement  made  by  Nathan,  that  the  Gaon 
of  Sura  did  not  address  the  head  of  the  Academy  at 
Pumbedita,  but  the  Academy  itself,  and  when  he  men- 
tioned the  head  of  the  Academy,  he  did  not  call  him 
Gaon  3. 

Accordingly,  it  is  highly  probable  that  Rabbi  Samuel 
Resh  Kalla,  whose  pupil,  Rabbi  Aha,  was  the  author  of  the 
Sheeltot,  is  none  other  than  the  Rabbi  Samuel,  the  chief 
of  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita,  whose  successor  Rabbi  Aha 
would  have  become  if  the  Exilarch  had  not  hindered  it. 
Sherira  was  in  the  habit  of  conferring  the  title  Gaon  by 

1  Comp.  the  extract  from  the  n*'ito   in  iron,  supplem.  to  the  Heb. 
periodical  -men,  II,  no.  n,  p.  18.     I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  A.  Marx  for 
this  reference. 

2  The  text  given  is  based  upon  a  combination  of  the  three  sources 
mentioned  in  the  text,  all  of  which  contain  many  errors. 

8  The  question  was  doubtless  addressed  by  the  head  of  the  Academy  of 
Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Shila,  to  the  head  of  the  Academy  at  Sura. 
Mere  courtesy,  then,  required  that  the  reply  should  at  least  recognise 
the  existence  of  the  questioner  by  mentioning  his  name.  The  case  in 
Harkavy,  276-7,  does  not  come  in  the  same  class. 


4o  THE    GEONIM 

courtesy  not  only  upon  the  chiefs  of  the  Pumbedita 
Academy,  but  also  upon  Amoraim 1  who  were  at  the  head 
of  schools.  He  applies  the  same  title  to  Rabbi  Samuel, 
though  his  disciple  Rabbi  Aha  and  other  sources  properly 
call  him  Resh  Kalla,  the  title  originally  belonging  to  the 
heads  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy.  That  he  actually  was 
at  the  head  of  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  appears  par- 
ticularly from  the  passage  in  p'V,  lyb,  7,  reporting  a  case 
in  law  which  had  been  submitted  during  several  Kallas 
to  Rabbi  Samuel,  who  never  gave  a  decisive  answer.  But 
if  the  case  was  so  important  that  the  questioners  urged 
a  decision,  why  was  not  the  opinion  of  the  Gaon  solicited  1 
To  say  that  the  difficulty  was  brought  before  Rabbi  Samuel 
during  the  Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Nehemiah, 
with  whom  the  scholars  of  Pumbedita  had  a  feud,  and 
whom  they  therefore  ignored,  is  an  evasion  dictated  by 
embarrassment.  In  the  first  place,  one  would  expect  the 
question  to  be  put  to  the  Gaon  of  Sura  in  such  an  emer- 
gency, and  secondly,  knowing  as  we  do  from  Sherira, 
that  the  scholars  of  Pumbedita  took  refuge  at  Sura  during 
the  Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Natronai,  it  would  be  very  sur- 
prising if  the  Resh  Kalla,  instead  of  joining  them,  stayed 
behind  in  Pumbedita. 

A  further  verification  of  the  fact  that  this  Samuel  Resh 
Kalla  was  the  actual  head  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy  is 
found  in  the  report  in  H*n,  84  a,  which  tells  that  a  certain 
case  was  decided  by  Rabbi  Jehudai,  the  head  of  the  Sura 
Academy,  in  common  with  Rabbi  Samuel.  The  case,  which 
deals  with  the  validity  of  a  marriage  between  Samaritans 
and  Jews,  being  very  important,  the  opinion  of  both 
Academies  was  desired.  There  is  one  difficulty  to  be  over- 
come, for,  according  to  Sherira,  Rabbi  Jehudai  attained 
to  the  Gaonate  some  few  years  after  the  death  of  Rabbi 
Samuel.  But  Rapoport  (note  24  on  }n3  '~\  'Tin)  points  out 
that  the  dates  in  this  passage  of  Sherira' s  Letter  require 

1  The  Midrash  Temurah  even  has  the  superscription  xypy  'an  cVc?  '3iw 


THE    GAONATE  49 

such  correction  as  would  bring  the  beginning  of  Rabbi 
Jehudai's  Gaonate  earlier.  It  is  interesting  to  note  the 
modification  which  this  passage,  as  cited  in  1X1  TTD^n,  83, 
has  suffered.  The  names  of  the  authorities  are  reversed 
as  compared  with  the  order  in  J"n,  and  it  is  the  correct 
order,  for  Rabbi  Samuel  doubtless  was  older  than  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  who  attained  to  office  only  shortly  before  the 
death  of  Rabbi  Samuel. 

As  for  the  identity  of  Rabbi  Samuel,  the  head  of  the 
Academy  at  Pumbedita,  with  the  Rabbi  Samuel  who  was 
the  teacher  of  Rabbi  Aha,  it  can  be  demonstrated  from 
data  in  Sherira's  Letter.  The  first  is  there  called  bxi»B>  2"i 
-in  m  no  "Q  (35,  2,  below).  The  last  word  eluded 


every  attempt  at  explanation,  and  there  was  nothing  to 
do  but  cross  it  off.  Now,  we  know  from  statements  made 
by  the  author  of  the  Sheeltot,  that  his  teacher,  Rabbi 
Samuel,  came  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Sura,  from  a 
place  situated  on  the  river  po  (see  Briill,  Jahrbucher, 
II,  149  —  a  reference  not  regarded  by  Berliner,  Beitrdge 
zur  Geographic  und  Ethnographie  Babyloniens,  3,  s.  v.). 
Accordingly,  npw  calls  neither  for  elision  nor  emendation. 
It  simply  means  that  Rabbi  Samuel  came  from  Diakara, 
a  town  close  to  Bagdad  and  Sura.  As  Rapoport  has 
shown  in  his  )^O  Tiy,  33,  it  is  called  NTpn  TPK  in  the 
Talmud,  and  by  the  classic  writers  Diakara,  which  cor- 
responds exactly  to  Rabbi  Sherira's  contracted  form 
•np'N*r.  Thus  we  have  not  only  succeeded  in  finding  the 
teacher  of  Rabbi  Aha  in  Sherira's  Letter,  but  at  the  same 
time  we  learn  from  it  that  he  was  a  scholar  of  Sura,  one 
of  those  presiding  over  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita.  As 
was  proved  above,  Sherira  is  in  the  habit  of  recording  the 
Suran  origin  of  Geonirn  of  Pumbedita.  Moreover,  it  is 
very  probable  that  Rabbi  Huna  Alluf  —  or  Resh  Kalla,  for 
the  two  titles  are  identical  with  each  other  (comp.  G.  S., 
p.  242)  —  who  is  mentioned  in  :Tn,  8  b,  is  the  Rab  Huna 
designated  by  Sherira  as  the  chief  of  the  Pumbedita 
Academy  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  The 


50  THE    GEONIM 

passage  in  a"n,  34  a,  should  be  corrected  according  to  2"n 
ed.  Hildesheimer,  170,  to  read  Win  31  "i»T.  It  refers  to  the 
chief  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy,  whom  the  author  of  J"n 
properly  calls  Alluf  or  Resh  Kalla,  but  never  Gaon. 

It  appears  that  the  head  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy, 
Rabbi  Judah,  who  was  in  office  soon  after  this  Rabbi 
Samuel,  is  identical  with  the  Rabbi  Judah  who  is  men- 
tioned in  j"n,  aid  (ed.  Hildesheimer,  131),  and  who,  though 
president  of  the  Pumbedita  Academy  in  this  early  Geonic 
period,  bears,  not  the  title  Gaon,  but  the  title  Resh 
Kalla,  or  its  equivalent  Alluf.  The  addition  of  llpa  irum 
to  his  name  does  not  mean  that  he  was  Resh  Kalla  in 
lips  'J,  but  that  he  hailed  from  that  town,  and  was  active 
in  Pumbedita.  As  the  scholars  of  "Ppa  'J  at  the  time  of 
the  Geonim  belonged  to  the  Sura  Academy — four  Geonim 
Sura  came  thence — Rabbi  Judah  is  found  to  be  another 
of  the  Surans  appointed  to  the  presidency  of  Pumbedita. 

Harkavy,  however  (Samuel  ben  Hofni,  note  124),  goes 
astray  in  holding  Rabbi  Haninai,  N33T  wn,  mentioned  in 
¥"w,  3  a,  17,  to  be  identical  with  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Haninai, 
who  does  not  bear  the  title,  because  at  the  time  of  Bostanai, 
with  whom  Rabbi  Haninai  was  contemporary,  the  title 
did  not  yet  exist.  The  passage  cited  refers  to  a  dispute 
among  the  descendants  of  the  Exi  larch.  It  was  altogether 
proper  that  such  a  case  should  go  before  "the  chief  judge," 
N331  'i,  of  the  Exilarch  (comp.  G.  $.,  p.  318,  note  a,  and 
above,  p.  la),  and  not  before  the  Geonim. 

Interesting  as  these  scattered  indications  are,  yet  we 
have  no  need  of  them  in  order  to  establish  the  supremacy 
of  Sura.  The  whole  of  Geonic  literature  bears  irrefutable 
testimony  to  it.  Up  to  the  second  third  of  the  ninth 
century,  the  Responsa  literature  contains  not  a  single 
Responsum  by  a  Gaon  of  Pumbedita1,  while  the  activity 

1  Graetz,  V3,  400,  ascribes  the  Eesponsum  in  y*TB,  24  b,  10,  to  Rabbi 
Natronai  ben  Nehemiah,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita.  His  hypothesis  that 
moi  is  simply  a  slip  for  M'-im  is  doubtless  correct,  and  corroborated 
by  the  MS.  reading,  but  the  inference  is  by  no  means  inevitable  that 


THE    GAONATE  51 

of  the  Geonim  of  Sura  began  as  early  as  the  eighth  century. 
The  first  Gaon  of  Pumbedita  from  whose  hand  we  possess 
Responsa  in  numbers  is  Rabbi  Paltoi,  and  the  first  three 
years  of  his  Gaonate  coincide  with  an  interregnum  in  the 
Sura  Gaonate1.  But  even  the  Responsa  originating  in 
Pumbedita  after  the  time  of  Paltoi  cannot  compare  with 
the  output  of  Sura,  either  in  point  of  quantity  or  quality. 
The  Responsa  bearing  the  names  of  Kohen-Zedek,  Sar 
Shalom,  Natronai,  Amram,  Nahshon,  Zemah,  Hilai,  Saadia — 
all  Geonim  of  Sura — practically  form  the  Geonic  Responsa 
literature  until  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi  Hai  appear  upon 
the  scene.  When  the  extinction  of  the  Gaonate  was  immi- 
nent, the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita  stepped  into  the  foreground 
by  reason  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Academy  at  Sura.  The 
assertion  that  the  communities  of  Africa  addressed  their 
questions  to  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita,  and  those  of  Spain 
theirs  to  the  Geonim  of  Sura,  is  incorrect  in  both  its  parts. 
Natronai,  Zemah,  Saadia,  and  even  Samuel 2,  the  last  Gaon 

the  Responsum  was  written  at  the  time  of  the  false  Messiah  ':nc,  as 
little  as  Emden's  zeal  against  Sabbatians  argues  his  contemporaneity 
with  Sabbatai  Zebi.  The  authorship  of  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Hilai  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Responsum  9  in  y*r,  243,  is  by  the  same* 
Gaon  as  no.  10,  and  in  the  former  a  plain  reference  is  made  to  the 
Karaites.  Accordingly,  Natronai  ben  Nehemiah,  who  lived  long  before 
Anan,  cannot  be  the  author.  Notice  also  the  linguistic  peculiarity  that 
the  Responsum  is  introduced  with  the  expression  Vura,  a  habit  of  the 
Sura  Gaon  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Hilai.  Comp.  oVo:,  32;  y*c,  21  b,  22; 
and  y"ic,  15  a,  bis,  which  belong  to  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Hilai  beyond  the 
peradventure  of  a  doubt. 

1  Comp.  Pardes,  aid,  where  Rabbi  Paltoi  is  described  as  rvnve'  VTO  *ro  VIT:. 

"  On  Natronai  and  the  scholars  of  Kairwan,  comp.  above,  p.  32, 
note  7.  Of  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Hayyim  we  have  not  alone  his  correspon  - 
dence  with  the  scholars  of  Kairwan  relative  to  Eldad,  but  also  his 
Halakic  Responsum  addressed  to  the  same  in  DTID,  21  a.  The  corre- 
spondence of  Rabbi  Saadia  with  the  scholars  of  Kairwan  is  to  be  found 
in  y"ir,  i8b-iga,  referred  to  above,  p.  32.  Even  Rabbi  Dosa,  the  son 
of  Rabbi  Saadia,  corresponded  with  the  scholars  of  Kairwan  ;  comp. 
noto  rftnp,  72.  The  correspondence  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni  with 
the  scholars  of  Kairwan  is  published  in  the  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402.  The 
scholars  of  nro  with  whom  R.  Nahshon  used  to  correspond  (Pardes,  26  d) 
are  probably  the  scholars  of  Kairwan. 

E  2 


52  THE    GEONIM 

of  Sura,  were  consulted  by  the  African  Jews,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  Paltoi  and  his  son  Zemah,  of  Pumbedita,  re- 
ceived inquiries  from  Spain l. 

The  fertility  of  Sura,  manifested  in  the  Responsa  litera- 
ture, was  no  less  noticeable  in  other  departments.  The 
works  of  the  Geonic  period  originated  there  rather  than 
in  Pumbedita.  Not  counting  the  works  of  Hai,  whose 
literary  activity  falls  in  a  time  in  which  the  Sura  Academy 
had  gone  out  of  existence,  the  only  production  by  a  Gaon 
of  Pumbedita  preserved  for  us  is  the  lexicographical  work 
of  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Paltoi 2.  The  authoritative  works  all 
originated  in  Sura.  The  author  of  the  3"n  3,  and  Rabbi 
Amram  and  Rabbi  Saadia,  all  occupied  the  Gaonate  of 
Sura.  Rabbi  Amram  compiled  his  Seder  in  compliance 
with  a  request  addressed  to  him  by  Spanish  communities, 
and  Rabbi  Saadia  his  order  of  prayers  in  compliance  with 
a  request  addressed  to  him  by  Egyptian  communities, 
showing  that  in  so  important  a  matter  as  the  fixing  of 
the  liturgy,  the  communities  of  the  Diaspora  desired  to 
have  the  advice  of  the  Sura  Academy  alone. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GAONATE  UNDER  THE  MOHAMMEDAN 

RULERS. 

Returning  for  a  brief  resume  of  the  results  of  our  inquiry 
into  Nathan's  account,  we  find  that  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid 
derives  his  data  about  the  Academies  from  Rabbi  Nathan, 
and  a  source  that  was  considered  authoritative  by  Samuel 
surely  deserves  our  confidence,  too.  Further,  we  have  seen 
that  Nathan's  report  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Amoraic 
Academies ;  it  deals  exclusively  with  those  of  the  Geonic 
period,  and  by  no  means  can  the  origin  of  the  latter,  as 
was  demonstrated  in  detail,  be  relegated  to  the  Talmudic 

1  Comp.  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  401-2,  770. 

2  And  even  this  is  doubtful ;  comp.  below,  pp.  159-60. 

3  Whoever  may  be  designated  as  the  author  of  the  j'n,  it  is  certain  he 
must  have  belonged  to  the  Sura  Academy.     Comp.   Epstein,  by 

a*n  'D. 


THE    GAONATE  53 

time,  seeing  that  the  older  epoch  knew  nothing  of  a  well- 
organized  institution  like  the  Gaonate,  vested  with  great 
power  and  unquestioned  authority.  At  the  same  time,  our  in- 
vestigation has  completely  corroborated  Nathan's  statement 
that  at  first  there  was  but  one  Gaon,  the  Gaon  of  the  Academy 
at  Sura.  Hence  the  transition  from  the  schools  of  the  time 
of  the  Amoraim  and  Saboraim  to  the  Academies  of  the 
Geonic  period  requires  an  explanation  that  concerns  itself 
with  more  than  the  merely  Jewish  conditions  prevailing  in 
Babylonia.  It  is  in  some  way  connected  with  the  political 
situation.  It  must  be  conceded  that  we  possess  no  direct 
historical  information  naming  the  Gaonate  as  an  institution 
of  the  early  Califate,  but  no  other  political  change  took 
place  during  the  centuries  following  the  redaction  of  the 
Talmud  capable  of  producing  an  institution  of  the  character 
of  the  Gaonate.  The  supposition  made  by  Graetz  (V3, 
895-6),  that  the  Gaonate  arose  under  Ali  (657),  remains 
the  only  plausible  hypothesis,  the  more  so  if  one  remembers 
what  Sherira  says  regarding  the  kind  reception  which  Ali 
accorded  a  great  Jewish  scholar,  Rabbi  Isaac,  of  Firuz- 
Shabor.  Graetz,  however,  can  hardly  be  right  when  he 
supposes  that  this  Rabbi  Isaac  obtained  special  privileges 
for  Sura.  It  is,  as  Halevy  says — if  Rabbi  Isaac  had  been 
inclined  to  be  partial,  his  bias  would  have  been  in  favour 
of  his  alma  mater  at  Pumbedita,  to  which  Firuz-Shabor 
belonged.  It  seems  rather  that  what  the  spiritual  leaders 
of  the  people  secured  from  the  new  rulers  was  the  per- 
mission to  call  into  being,  by  the  side  of  the  Exilarchate, 
a  religious  authority  with  definite  powers  and  competence. 
If  this  was  so,  it  was  natural  that  the  chief  of  the  old  and 
venerable  Academy  at  Sura  should  be  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  new  board.  In  the  course  of  time,  as  the  Academy  at 
Pumbedita  developed  more  and  more,  its  chief  in  the  same 
measure  gained  in  importance.  But  the  parity  of  the  two 
Academies  reached  the  stage  of  an  accomplished  fact  only 
in  the  time  of  Kohen-Zedek,  when  it  is  probable  that  Sura 
happened  to  be  without  a  Gaon. 


54  THE    GEONIM 

This  assumption  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Gaonate  explains 
at  the  same  time  the  frequent  occasions  for  friction  between 
the  Exilarchs  and  the  Geonim  of  Sura  until  the  year  689, 
though  they  disappeared  for  ever  after  that  crucial  time. 
It  was  natural  that  the  Exilarchate  should  not  accept  so 
powerful  a  rival  as  the  Gaonate  of  Sura  without  manifesting 
some  resistance.  It  required  almost  two  generations  for 
the  Exilarchs  to  forget  their  former  undivided  power. 
But  scarcely  had  the  reconciliation  of  the  Exilarchs  and 
the  Geonim  of  Sura  taken  place  when  the  rise  of  the 
Academy  at  Pumbedita  gave  occasion  for  new  difficulties. 
From  the  time  of  Mar  Yanka  (719),  who  had  been  installed 
as  Gaon  at  Pumbedita  contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  Academy, 
until  the  equally  arbitrary  appointment  of  Rabbi  Isaac 
(833)>  there  elapsed  more  than  a  century,  during  which 
the  Pumbeditans  had  much  to  endure  at  the  hand  of  the 
Exilarchs.  The  Gaonate  of  Sura  was  recognised  by  the 
State,  and  therefore  the  Exilarchate  was  forced  to  respect 
its  rights ;  while  the  Academy  at  Pumbedita  possessed 
no  privileges  reinforcing  its  claims,  and  was  exposed 
to  wanton  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Exilarchs. 
Finally,  in  830,  when  the  Calif  Maimun  decreed  that 
ten  members  of  a  religious  body  sufficed  for  the  election 
of  a  chief  for  themselves,  the  disputes  between  Pumbedita 
and  the  Exilarchate  were  silenced  for  ever.  After  this 
ordinance  was  in  effect,  the  Gaonate  of  Pumbedita  took  and 
maintained  its  place  by  the  side  of  the  Gaonate  of  Sura 
as  an  equal  power.  Thenceforth,  neither  the  Academies 
nor  the  Exilarchate  could  count  upon  the  exclusive  support 
of  the  government ;  it  was  a  matter  of  chance  which  gained 
its  ear,  and  their  differences  had  to  be  adjusted  privately. 
These  circumstances  explain  the  fact  remarked  above,  that 
Rabbi  Paltoi  (842)  was  the  first  of  the  Geonim  of  Pumbe- 
dita who  issued  decisions  to  outside  communities.  As  long 
as  the  Gaonate  of  Sura  was,  beside  the  Exilarchate,  the 
only  Jewish  authority  recognised  by  the  State,  foreign 
Jews  addressed  their  questions  to  the  Geonim  of  Sura. 


THE    GAONATE  55 

After  the  rescript  of  Maimun,  it  depended  primarily  upon 
the  learning  of  the  Gaon  in  the  one  place  or  the  other 
whether  the  Academy  of  Sura  or  that  at  Pumbedita  was 
given  the  preference. 

NATHAN  HA-BABLI'S  ACCOUNT  OF  UKBA. 

We  have  again  come  round  to  our  starting-point,  and 
I  venture  to  think  that  a  satisfactory  conclusion  has 
been  reached  concerning  the  remarkable  relation  sub- 
sisting between  the  Exilarchs  and  the  two  Academies. 
Before  leaving  the  subject,  however,  it  would  be  advisable 
to  give  close  consideration  to  the  last  controversy  between 
the  Academy  of  Pumbedita  and  the  Exilarch. 

Of  this  controversy  we  have  two  widely  divergent 
reports.  At  the  end  of  his  Letter,  Sherira  informs  us 
that  a  quarrel  broke  out  between  two  factions  after  the 
death  of  his  grandfather  Judah,  in  the  year  917.  One 
party  favoured  Mebasser 1 ;  the  other,  with  the  Exilarch 

1  Steinschneider,  Arabische  Literatur,  70,  believes  the  name  to  be  a 
translation  of  the  Arabic  Mubashshir,  which  is  not  very  convincing  to 
me.  Rather  I  should  take  it  to  be  a  '1:2  for  Elijah,  whose  appellative 
in  Jewish  literature  is  Mebasser,  "Proclaimer  of  Good  Tidings,"  without 
further  mark  of  identification.  In  the  synagogue  at  Aleppo  there  is 
an  inscription  dated  834,  in  honour  of  -i«no  11  jn:  11  'to  (Adler,  Jews 
in  Many  Lands,  161),  probably  the  earliest  mention  of  the  name  known. 
In  a  letter  dated  1029,  also  coming  from  Aleppo  (D'TCW  *i:a,  III,  i6a), 
there  occurs  a  imo  p  nD' ;  likewise  in  a  letter  of  the  same  year,  written 
in  Egypt,  a  Din:  'a  icao  and  a  icio  '2  rpv  are  mentioned  (.7.  Q.  S.,  XIX, 
254).  In  the  J.  Q.  R.,  1.  c.,  727,  occur  the  following  :  'V?  p  ITCUO,  p  mmn 
iirio,  and  rfro  p  TDTD,  all  from  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century. 
That  an  appellative  of  Elijah's  should  be  used  as  the  name  of  a  person 
is  not  strange  ;  the  widespread  name  Emanuel  is  an  epithet  of  the 
Messiah,  as  are  also  Zemah,  the  name  of  three  of  the  Geonim,  and  in 
common  use  down  to  our  own  day,  and  Sar  Shalom  (Isa.  ix.  5),  which  is 
known  to  have  been  borne  by  others  besides  the  prominent  Sura  Gaon, 
as,  for  instance,  Sar  Shalom  ben  Joseph,  the  signer  of  a  contract  in 
Fostat  in  750  (J.  Q.  R.,  XVII,  428),  and  the  Chief  Rabbi  of  Persia  at 
the  time  when  Benjamin  of  Tudela  visited  the  land.  Comp.  also 
Harkavy,  Saadia,  225,  bottom.  A  propos  of  names  in  the  Geonic  time, 
is  the  name  of  the  Gaon  wn,  identical  with  N'Tn  used  by  French  Jews, 
recorded  in  Gross,  Gallia  Judaica,  149  ? 


56  THE    GEONIM 

David  at  its  head,  favoured  Kohen-Zedek,  as  Gaon  of 
Pumbedita.  Five  years  later  a  truce  was  concluded,  the 
Exilarch  gave  up  his  opposition  to  Kabbi  Mebasser. 
Nevertheless,  Kohen-Zedek  persisted,  supported  by  a 
number  of  influential  men,  who  remained  loyal  to  him. 
Finally,  after  the  death  of  Rabbi  Mebasser,  in  926,  Kohen- 
Zedek  was  acknowledged  Gaon  by  all,  and  he  occupied  the 
position  for  ten  years,  until  his  death. 

At  first  sight  the  account  of  the  occurrence  given  by 
Nathan  ha-Babli  seems  far  different.  He  has  this  to 
say:  Between  the  Exilarch  Ukba  and  the  Gaon  Kohen- 
Zedek  a  dispute  broke  out  on  account  of  the  revenues 
derived  from  the  community  of  Khorasan.  Ukba  appro- 
priated them,  though  the  moneys  belonged  to  the  Academy 
of  Pumbedita.  The  Sultan,  urged  by  the  most  influential 
of  the  Jews,  banished  the  Exilarch,  but  he  reinstated 
him  after  a  year's  exile,  and  then  banished  him  again, 
this  time  irrevocably.  Ukba  emigrated  to  Africa.  The 
Exilarchate,  having  been  left  vacant  for  a  period  of  four 
or  five  years,  the  people  demanded  the  appointment  of 
David  ben  Zakkai.  Their  candidate  was  endorsed  by 
Rabbi  Amram  ben  Solomon,  the  Gaon  of  Sura.  But  Kohen- 
Zedek  could  only  be  prevailed  upon  to  acknowledge  the 
new  Exilarch  after  a  period  of  three  years. 

Now,  it  would  be  possible  to  reconcile  the  differences 
between  Sherira's  account  and  Nathan's  as  they  affect 
the  relation  between  Kohen-Zedek  and  the  Exilarch.  As 
the  facts  are,  it  would  not  be  impossible  to  assume  that 
a  whilom  enemy,  once  reconciled,  is  transformed  into  a 
friend.  But  the  difficulty  lies  elsewhere.  The  chrono- 
logical contradictions  between  the  two  sources  are  so 
numerous  that  Graetz's  way  of  escape  does  not  help  the 
honest  inquirer.  Graetz  accepts  Nathan's  account  in 
respect  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  he  places  trust  in 
Sherira's  chronological  data.  Halevy  justly  argues  against 
a  method  that  is  arbitrary  and  unscientific,  and  carries 
with  it  the  implication  that  an  authority  like  Sherira  tells 


THE    GAONATE  57 

a  confused  and  unreliable  tale  of  events  happening  in 
his  own  lifetime.  Halevy  himself,  who  represents  Nathan 
as  an  ignoramus  living  after  the  extinction  of  the  Gaonate, 
and  patching  his  report  together  from  older  sources  which 
he  failed  to  understand  correctly,  is  even  further  removed 
from  the  truth  than  Graetz. 

It  appears  now  that  it  is  not  sufficient  for  us  to  deal 
with  a  detail.  The  question  that  takes  precedence  is 
Nathan's  credibility  and  trustworthiness.  It  therefore 
behoves  us  to  analyse  Halevy's  presentation  of  the  matter. 
The  controversy,  Halevy  maintains,  was  not  between  Ukba 
and  Kohen-Zedek,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  but  between 
Ukba  and  the  Kohen-Zedek  who  was  Gaon  of  Sura  (845). 
But  Nathan,  according  to  Halevy,  knew  nothing  about  the 
older  Kohen-Zedek,  and  he  confused  him  with  the  younger 
man,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita  of  the  same  name,  and,  as 
he  was  aware  that  at  some  time  a  dispute  had  occurred 
between  the  Academy  of  Pumbedita  and  the  Exilarch 
David,  he  constituted  Kohen-Zedek  the  opponent  of  David, 
although  Sherira  informs  us  that  the  opposite  was  the 
case.  As  a  consequence  of  the  quarrel  between  Ukba 
and  the  Sura  Academy,  of  many  years'  duration,  Amram 
was  appointed  Gaon  by  the  Exilarch,  in  opposition  to  the 
incumbent  Natronai  (#53-6).  The  celebrated  Gaon  Amram 
bar  Shashna1,  the  author  of  the  Seder,  Halevy  holds,  is  no 

1  The  great  difficulty  lies  in  this,  that,  according  to  Kabbi  Sherira's 
Letter,  Rabbi  Amram  had  himself  proclaimed  as  Gaon  during  the  lifetime 
of  Rabbi  Natronai,  while,  to  judge  by  the  y"-\D,  the  relation  between  the 
two  must  have  been  very  cordial.  Not  only  does  Rab  Amram  speak 
of  Rabbi  Natronai  with  great  respect  (comp.  particularly  his  words  in 
Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.,  2),  but  he  also  quotes  his  Responsa  on  every 
page  of  his  Seder.  Indeed,  the  number  of  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Natronai 
in  the  y"^o  is  larger  than  those  quoted  from  all  the  other  Geonim  taken 
together.  Halevy's  hypothesis,  so  far  from  doing  away  with  the  difficulty, 
rather  increases  it.  For  if  Rab  Amram,  as  Halevy  maintains,  was  put 
up  as  Gaon  in  opposition  to  Rabbi  Natronai,  during  the  quarrel  between 
the  Sura  Academy  and  the  Exilarch  Mar  Ukba,  then  Rab  Amram  was 
disloyal  not  only  to  Rabbi  Natronai,  but  to  the  Academy  as  well !  This 
forces  upon  me  the  conjecture  that  the  passage  in  question  in  the  Letter 


58  THE    GEONIM 

other  than  Aim-am  ben  Solomon,  who  continued  to  preside 
over  the  Academy  at  Sura,  according  to  Nathan's  state- 
ment, even  during  the  interval  between  the  deposing  of 
Ukba  and  the  installation  of  David.  The  latter  was  generally 
accepted  as  Exilarch  about  875,  shortly  after  the  death 
of  Ami-am,  and  he  remained  in  office  for  more  than  half  a 
century.  Furthermore,  Halevy  says,  Nathan  labours  under 
a  misapprehension  when  he  states  that  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi l 
was  the  predecessor  of  Saadia  in  the  Gaonate.  The  simple 
explanation  is  that  he  had  heard  of  a  Gaon  of  Sura  named 
Hai,  Hai  ben  Nahshon,  and  he  confounded  him  with  the 
celebrated  Hai  ben  Sherira,  the  last  Gaon  of  Pumbedita, 
and  at  once  he  was  ready  to  make  the  latter  Gaon  of  Sura, 
and  endowed  him  with  a  father  of  another  name. 

So  far  Halevy.  For  the  present,  we  shall  put  aside  the 
question  as  to  the  time  and  trustworthiness  of  Nathan,  and 
shall  confine  ourselves  to  the  consideration  of  Halevy's 
theory. 

by  Rabbi  Sherira  is  corrupt.  I  would  propose  the  following  reading  : 
rrrn  rvmi  njy>«  DTM?  nb  pw  rbo  mn  pn  >opi — "And  before  this  time 
[before  Rab  Amram  became  Gaon],  the  Gaon  [Rabbi  NatronaiJ  waived  the 
honour  due  to  him  from  Rab  Amram,  and  the  latter  therefore  omitted 
to  pay  his  respects  to  him."  It  must  be  remembered  that  'Tjjl*  y'lc,  "  to 
show  respect,"  is  used  in  the  Talmud,  as,  for  instance,  Baba  Batra,  ngb, 
and  in  j"n,  54,  by  Rabbi  Natronai,  in  the  sense  of  "  yielding  precedence ." 
Furthermore  rp:n  rvn:  is  the  reverse  of  rrnp  ivr,  which  Rabbi  Sherira 
uses,  28,  5;  41,  4,  to  express  the  recognition  given  to  a  Gaon,  in  that 
the  members  of  the  Academy,  including  even  the  most  prominent 
scholars,  attended  the  lectures  of  the  Gaon  occasionally.  Attention 
should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  in  this  passage  IT"?  ybs  cannot  be 
translated  by  "he  opposed  him."  For  this  Sherira  would  have  used 
rvbr1,  as  in  41,  4.  There  remains  only  to  add  that  the  words  oiny  Y'm 
JW3  WITE:  '-ft  TTDH,  quoted  by  Rabbi  Aaron,  of  Lunel,  in  n"-itf,  I,  i8a, 
from  Nahmanides,  are  to  be  corrected  so  as  to  read  Ten  -p  moy  '-\  TIDTI 
fiNa  'N:TRM  'i,  as  appears  from  Nahmanides,  on  Hullin,  24,  who  quotes 
Rabbi  Natronai's  Responsum  given  in  J>"ID,  na.  A  MS.  of  the  rViN  in 
the  Sulzberger  Collection  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America, 
contains  not  only  the  corrupt  text  in  the  edition,  but  C2"on  instead  of 
p"tn  besides ! 

1  Perhaps  nothing  but  another  way  of  writing  wp.- 


THE    GAONATE  59 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  settled  that  David  ben  Judah  was 
Exilarch  in  833.  Sherira  and  other  sources1  are  unanimous 
on  this  point.  After  him,  and  before  Ukba  ruled,  there 
were  two  Exilarchs,  Natronai  and  Hisdai,  the  son  of  Na- 
tronai 2.  According  to  Halevy,  the  rule  of  these  two 
Exilarchs  together  could  not  have  exceeded  twelve  years, 
lor  in  845,  the  date  of  the  Suran  Gaon  Kohen-Zedek,  he 
says,  Ukba  was  in  the  thick  of  a  conflict  with  the  Sura 
Academy.  Considered  by  itself,  this  brief  period  is  not 
a  probability,  but  the  assumption  is  stamped  as  an 
impossibility  by  the  fact  that  we  meet  with  the  Exilarch 
Hisdai  as  an  active  participant  in  affairs  as  late  as  the 
Gaonates  of  Natronai  and  Amram3.  This  disposes  of 
the  possibility  of  a  dispute  between  Ukba  and  Kohen- 
Zedek  of  Sura. 

From  the  premise  set  up  by  Halevy,  that  the  quarrel 
between  the  Exilarch  and  the  Academy  was  caused  by 
the  revenues  from  Khorasan,  appropriated  without  warrant 
by  Ukba,  it  follows,  he  says,  that  the  encroachments  of 
the  Exilarch  brought  him  into  conflict  with  Sura,  and  not 
with  Pumbedita,  as  Khorasan  is  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Bagdad,  the  judicature  of  Sura.  An  elementary  atlas  might 
have  taught  Halevy  that  Khorasan  lies  only  about  800 
miles  to  the  east  of  Bagdad! 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  case  is  precisely  the  reverse 
of  its  statement  by  Halevy.  Originally,  the  sources  of 

1  Comp.  Graetz,  Geschichte,  V3,  389. 

1  Dukes  in  Ben  Chananjah,  IV,  141-2,  from  a  MS.  Responsum  by  Rabbi 
Zemah  ben  Solomon,  chief  judge  of  the  court  of  the  Exilarch  Hisdai. 

3  Ibn  <;;im;i.  in  Graetz,  Jubelschrifl,  17,  names  Rabbi  Nathan  ben 
Hananiah  (comp.  above,  p.  32)  of  Kairwan  as  the  correspondent  of 
Rabbi  Natronai,  and  he  is  the  same  Rabbi  Hananiah  to  whom  was 
addressed  the  Responsum,  mentioned  above,  by  Rabbi  Zemah  under  the 
Exilarchate  of  Hisdai.  As  the  sons  of  Rabbi  Nathan  were  contemporaries 
of  Rabbi  Saadia  (928)  (comp.  above,  p.  32),  he  could  not  have  nourished 
before  the-Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Natronai  (850),  and  the  letter  of  Rabbi 
Zemah  must  date  from  the  period  during  which  the  Sura  Gaonate  was 
vacant,  probably  between  Rabbi  Malka  and  Rabbi  Hai  ben  Nahshon, 
about  888;  comp.  Sherira,  39,  17. 


60  THE    GEONIM 

revenue  assigned  to  the  Exilarchate  and  to  the  Sura 
Gaonate  were  limited  to  Babylonia  and  the  nearest  Persian 
provinces.  The  Academy  at  Pumbedita,  which  attained  to 
equality  with  Sura  at  a  comparatively  late  day,  had  to 
content  itself  with  revenues  gathered  in  the  more  remote 
provinces.  The  only  possible  inference  then  is  that  Khorasan, 
situated  at  a  considerable  distance,  belonged  to  the  parish 
of  Pumbedita. 

The  peculiarity  of  Halevy's  method  is  again  illustrated 
by  his  opinion  that  Nathan  confuses  the  Gaon  Hai  ben 
Nahshon  with  the  celebrated  Hai  ben  Sherira — and  then 
calls  him  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi.  But  how  is  it  conceivable 
that  that  ignoramus  Nathan,  who  mixed  up  the  Geonim 
of  Sura  with  the  Geonim  of  Pumbedita,  who  had  not  the 
slightest  knowledge  of  the  happenings  in  the  Academies, 
nor  of  the  relation  of  the  Academies  to  the  Exilarchate — 
how  is  it  conceivable  that  he  should  have  hit  upon  so 
obscure  a  name  as  Kiyyumi,  he  who  was  not  even 
acquainted  with  Sherira "? 

In  the  earlier  portion  of  this  Introduction  certain  facts 
were  set  forth  testifying  to  the  credibility  and  trustworthi- 
ness of  Nathan.  We  shall  now  pursue  this  subject  further. 
The  introductory  words  of  Nathan's  account,  "  What  he 
himself  partly  saw  and  what  he  partly  heard  in  Baby- 
lonia, relative  to  the  Exilarch  Ukba,"  are  a  good  recom- 
mendation for  the  author.  A  gossip  or  a  vagrant  scribe 
would  not  have  used  this  circumspect  clause.  His  exactitude 
in  the  description  of  the  vicinity  of  Bagdad  displays  itself 
particularly  in  the  Arabic  version,  as  Dr.  Friedlaender  shows 
in  the  above-mentioned  article.  A  writer  who  is  acquainted 
with  the  name  of  a  mistress  of  the  Persian  king  in  whose 
honour  a  fountain  had  been  erected  centuries  before,  does 
not  impress  one  as  likely  not  to  know  the  leaders  of  his 
nation  at  his  own  time,  at  least  by  name. 

As  to  what  Nathan's  time  was  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
In  the  Arabic  version  of  his  report  he  speaks  of  Natira, 
"  the  father  of  Sahl  and  Ishak,"  showing  that  he  lived  after 


THE    GAONATE  6l 

the  death  of  Natira,  but  contemporaneously  with  the  sons 
of  Natira.  Accordingly,  he  had  not  been  an  eye-witness 
of  the  dispute  between  Ukba  and  the  Academies,  in  which 
Natira  was  the  chief  figure,  or  he  was  too  young  at  the 
time  to  carry  personal  recollections  of  it  away  with  him. 
On  the  other  hand,  not  only  was  he  an  eye-witness  of  the 
quarrel  of  Saadia  with  the  Exilarch  David,  he  was  actually 
present  when  David  entered  upon  his  office  in  920.  Nathan's 
minute  description  of  the  ceremonies  at  the  installation  of 
an  Exilarch  —  he  goes  so  far  as  to  give  in  detail  the  exact 
height  and  width  of  the  throne  used  by  the  Exilarch  on  the 
occasion — admit  of  no  doubt  as  to  his  having  been  present 
and  seen  such  a  celebration,  and  it  could  have  been  only 
at  the  induction  of  David  into  office,  as  Nathan  expressly 
calls  him  the  last  of  the  Exilarchs.  This  offers  us,  not  only 
a  terminus  a  quo,  but  also  a  terminus  ad  quem.  A  Genizah 
fragment,  published  by  Dr.  Cowley  in  the  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII, 
402,  gives  the  information  that  the  Exilarchate,  vacant 
since  the  death  of  David,  was  filled  again  in  953.  Nathan 
therefore  must  have  written  his  account  before  953.  As, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  mentions  Aaron  Sargado  as  Gaon 
of  Pumbedita1,  who  entered  upon  office  in  943,  Nathan's 
account  must  have  been  composed  between  943  and  953. 

1  Halevy,  276,  doubts  the  identification  between  n«nc  'a  ibs  mentioned 
by  Nathan  and  Rabbi  Aaron  ben  Joseph,  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  though 
all  of  seven  years  before  the  publication  of  Halevy's  book,  Harkavy  had 
published,  in  D':<TO*OI>  jvoi,  V,  the  polemics  of  Rabbi  Aaron  against 
Rabbi  Saadia,  whence  the  identity  of  the  two  appears  unmistakably ! 
The  name  Fjta  =  3^3  (comp.  J.  Q.  B.,  XI,  127)  occurs  in  so  early  a  document 
as  one  dated  750,  J.  Q.  R.,  XVII,  428.  From  the  fact  that  Rabbi  Nathan 
knew  no  Exilarch  after  David  ben  Zakkai,  it  follows  that  his  account 
actually  ends  with  the  passage  on  Sargado.  By  homoeoteleuton  the 
passage  on  the  Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Hananiah  dropped  out  at  the  end 
of  the  report.  The  reading  should  be :  mvr  '-\  p  rv:3n  VVTN  -|boi  ICEJI 

....  •j'jQ'i   "raD3i   nsnoi   c':c   'n .     The   various  texts  of  Rabbi  Sherira's 

Letter  also  show  signs  that  passages  have  been  dropped  from  it  in  this 
way.  Frequently  the  names  of  the  Geonim  and  the  length  of  their 
official  term  are  missing,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  sentences  between 
two  mrai  were  overlooked  by  the  copyist ;  comp.,  for  instance,  ed. 


62  THE    GEONIM 

The  question  as  to  who  deserves  more  confidence,  Sherira 
or  Nathan,  may  therefore  not  be  decided,  as  Graetz  does, 
in  favour  of  the  latter,  on  the  ground  of  his  having  been 
closer  in  time  to  the  occurrences  described,  for,  as  now 
appears,  they  were  contemporaries.  One  must  agree  with 
Halevy,  who  insists  that  a  Gaon,  son  and  grandson  of 
Geonim  to  boot,  must  invite  greater  confidence  than  an 
unknown  writer.  But  if  the  two  accounts  are  read  with 
a  critical  eye  it  will  appear  that  they  mutually  complement, 
and  in  no  wise  contradict  each  other. 

THE  LAST  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  THE  EXILARCHATE  AND 
THE  POMBEDITA  GAONATE. 

The  controversy  between  Kohen-Zedek  and  Ukba  broke 
out,  according  to  the  Arabic  version l  of  Nathan's  account, 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Kohen-Zedek's  Gaonate.  If  we  / 
remember  that  even  according  to  Sherira  he  was  appointed^ 
as  Gaon  by/the  Exilarch  in  the  year  918,  then  the  year 
922  would  have  to  be  designated  as  the  beginning  of  the 
dispute.  A  point  to  be  noted  is  this,  that  Sherira  makes 
Kohen-Zedek  to  be  put  into  office  by  the  Exilarch  David, 
while,  according  to  Nathan,  Ukba  was  Exilarch  at  the 
time.  However,  the  Sherira  text  is  very  doubtful  in  this 
portion.  Most  of  the  editions  mention  David's  name 
three  times  in  connexion  with  the  Gaonate  of  Kohen- 
Zedek,  but  Wallerstein  has  it  only  once  2.  Moreover,  this 

Wallerstein,  20-1.  Therefore,  the  omission  of  Rabbi  Hananiah's  Gaonate 
in  Nathan's  narrative  proves  nothing  derogatory  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  narrator,  as  Halevy  holds  (275-6),  but  only  to  the  correctness  of 
our  text.  In  Harkavy,  215,  Rabbenu  Hai  is  described  as  the  son  of 
Rabbi  Hananiah,  which,  naturally,  is  due  to  homoeoteleuton.  The  words 
between  irsiiN  and  i:'3iiN  dropped  out.  If  Rabbi  Sherira's  text  regarding 
the  length  of  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Kafnoi's  term  of  office  is  correct,  then 
we  should  read  Dnrin  n*i  n:o  in  Nathan. 

1  The  Hebrew  version  has  the  fortieth  year,  which  is  absolutely  out  of 
the  question. 

2  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Alexander  Marx  for  the  information  that  the 
Vienna  MS.  of  Rabbi  Sherira's  Letter  agrees  with  Wallerstein. 


THE  GAONATE  63 

passage  in  Sherira's  Letter  offers  a  great  difficulty  in  the 
nature  of  the  facts  set  down.  The  Academy,  it  says, 
appointed  Rabbi  Mebasser  the  successor  to  Rabbi  Judah, 
while  Kohen-Zedek  was  the  choice  of  the  Exilarch,  and 
the  conflict  between  the  Academy  and  the  Exilarch  lasted 
five  years  (923).  Finally,  the  Exilarch  recognised  the 
Gaon  chosen  by  the  Academy.  But  Sherira  goes  on  and 
says  that  Kohen-Zedek,  with  his  adherents,  persisted  in 
their  schism  until  the  death  of  Rabbi  Mebasser,  in  the 
year  926. 

One  would  search  vainly  for  a  similar  occurrence  during 
the  whole  course  of  the  Geonic  time — an  individual  op- 
posing the  choice  of  both  the  Academy  and  the  Exilarch. 
If  Kohen-Zedek,  as  Sherira  is  supposed  to  say,  was  put  up 
by  the  Exilarch  as  Gaon  against  the  will  of  the  Academy, 
then  it  would  •  seem  inevitable  that  the  victory  of  the 
Academy  over  the  Exilarch,  when  he  finally  confirmed  the 
choice  of  the  Academy,  would  cut  the  ground  from  under 
the  feet  of  Kohen-Zedek.  How  account  for  the  continued 
opposition  by  Kohen-Zedek  ? 

In  several  other  respects  the  occurrence  is  unique.  It 
is  the  only  case  in  which  the  Academy  emerged  triumphant 
from  a  contest  with  the  Exilarch  about  an  appointment  to 
the  Gaonate.  In  all  other  cases  the  Exilarch  maintained 
the  upper  hand.  And  yet  it  cannot  be  said  from  what 
we  know  about  him  that  David  was  a  weakling.  A  man 
who  was  able  to  hold  his  own  in  opposition  to  Saadia 
and  all  the  prominent  men  connected  with  Saadia  who 
had  influence  at  the  court  of  the  Calif,  should  meekly 
declare  himself  overcome  by  Rabbi  Mebasser! 

It  now  behoves  us  to  view  Sherira's  statements  in  the 
light  afforded  by  the  facts  reported  by  Nathan.  From 
an  incidental  remark  of  Nathan's  we  learn  that  Kohen- 
Zedek  was  related  to  Ukba,  and  we  even  learn  that  this 
relationship  was  the  reason  why  he  opposed  the  appoint- 
ment of  David  later  on  as  Exilarch.  This  supplies  the 
motive  for  a  quarrel  between  Ukba  and  the  Pumbedita 


04  THE    GEONIM 

Academy — he  urged  the  appointment  of  a  relative,  Kohen- 
Zedek,  while  the  Academy  installed  as  its  chief  Rabbi 
Mebasser,  whose  father  had  occupied  the  Gaonate.  Then 
Ukba  sought  to  make  the  most  of  the  schism  in  the 
Academy,  and  seized  upon  the  revenues  from  Khorasan, 
in  the  hope  that  there  was  no  need  to  apprehend  obstacles 
on  the  part  of  "  his  "  Gaon.  But  it  turned  out  to  be  a  case 
of  reckoning  without  one's  host.  Kohen-Zedek  was  too 
conscientious  and  honest  to  sanction  such  high-handed 
measures.  Some  Jews  of  influence  at  the  court  of  the 
Calif  managed  to  cause  the  banishment  of  Ukba,  and  the 
Exilarchate  remained  vacant  some  years.  But  blood  is 
thicker  than  water,  and  with  Kohen-Zedek  the  feelings 
of  kinship  were  further  stimulated  by  the  recollection 
of  the  fact  that  he  owed  his  position  as  Gaon  to  this 
relative  of  his  who  was  deprived  of  his  office.  Therefore, 
he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  acknowledge  David 
as  Exilarch.  He,  and  along  with  him  probably  a  large 
number  of  distinguished  men,  hoped  it  would  prove 
possible  to  induce  the  Calif  to  revoke  the  edict  of 
banishment  issued  against  Ukba.  But  David  had  no 
sooner  been  installed  as  Exilarch  by  one  part  of  Jewry 
than  he  hastened  to  conclude  peace  with  the  Academy 
at  Pumbedita  and  acknowledge  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Mebasser 
chosen  by  it. 

This  explains  what  Sherira  says,  that  the  reconciliation 
between  the  Academy  and/the  Exilarch  took  place  in  923. 
David  lost  no  time  in  making  amends  to  the  best  of  his 
powers  for  the  unwarranted  interferences  of  his  predecessor. 
But  the  peace  thus  concluded  exerted  no  influence  upon 
Kohen-Zedek  and  his  followers.  They  refused  to  recognise 
David  as  Exilarch,  and  persisted  in  their  opposition  to  him 
and  Mebasser.  According  to  Nathan,  this  opposition  of 
Kohen-Zedek  ceased  only  three  years  later,  in  926.  But 
from  Sherira  we  learn  that  this  was  the  year  of  Rabbi 
Mebasser's  death,  when  all  parties  acknowledged  Kohen- 
Zedek  as  Gaon. 


THE    GAONATE  65 

Here  Sherira  furnishes  us  with  the  motive  for  the 
reconciliation  between  Kohen-Zedek  and  David,  of  which 
Nathan  gives  us  no  hint,  and  which  he  seeks  in  a  miracle 
in  the  real  sense  of  the  word1.  But  it  is  unnecessarv 

tf 

to  impose  a  tax  upon  our  credulity.  Kohen-Zedek  no 
longer  had  any  reason  for  opposing  David.  His  position 
as  Gaon  was  now  assured.  And  to  bring  about  complete 
unanimity  between  Sherira  and  Nathan  we  have  but  to 
cross  oif  the  little  word  nn  in  Sherira's  Letter,  40,  18. 
The  text  then  reads :  Twa»K  xraTiDn  pirn  snata  mm 
.  .  .  pnx  fro  m  nc&  nvnp  jwai  .  .  .  pw  n^ao  an  no!>  ninpi 
m  no  oy  K*BO  nn  KB^B>  vnjn  3^n  r\yy  WK  iy  sn:i^a  mm 
nB>3Q — "  There  was  a  dispute.  The  scholars  of  the  Academy, 
held  their  meeting  and  chose  Rab  Mebasser  as  Gaon,  while 
the  Exilarch  [=Ukba]  named  Kohen-Zedek  as  Gaon.  The 
dispute  lasted  until  Ellulof  the  year  233  [  =  922],  when  the 
Exilarch  David  concluded  peace  with  Rabbi  Mebasser." 

There  is  another  possibility — that  the  beginning  of  this 
passage  is  to  be  read  K'B>3  nn  nil,  "the  uncle  of  the  Exilarch 
David."  Sherira  describes  Ukba,  the  deposed  Exilarch,  as 
the  uncle  of  David,  of  whom  he  had  spoken  shortly  before, 
and  to  whom  he  had  to  refer  again  at  once.  As  the  last  of 
the  Exilarchs  and  the  opponent  of  Saadia,  he  could  suppose 
that  his  name  was  well  known  to  his  readers — a  supposition 
that  would  not  hold  good  of  Ukba.  But  the  copyists, 
considering  in  in  as  dittography,  either  omitted  the  first 
nvi,  as  in  Wallerstein,  or  inserted  it  in  the  last  sentence, 
before  tops2. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Ukba  controversy  until  the 
recognition  of  David  as  Exilarch  on  the  part  of  Kohen- 
Zedek,  about  eight  years  elapsed  according  to  Nathan,  the 

1  We  may  safely  assume  that  the  blind  T1:  played  an  important  part 
in  allaying  the  quarrel  between  the  Exilarch  and  the  Gaon,  even  if  we 
are  not  credulous  enough  to  accept  the  miracle. 

8  It  is,  however,  highly  probable  that  Rabbi  Sherira  at  first  spoke  only 
of  xnc:  ( =  Ukba),  and  afterwards,  in  connexion  with  the  reconciliation 
with  the  Academy,  properly  mentioned  nnr:n  TIT,  and  then  the  7n  of  the 
second  passage  was  added  to  the  NX*:  of  the  first. 
I  F 


66  THE    GEONIM 

same  number  of  years  being  occupied,  according  to  Sherira, 
by  the  dispute  between  Rabbi  Mebasser  and  Kohen-Zedek. 
The  only  disparity  between  the  two  accounts  is  that, 
according  to  Nathan,  Kohen-Zedek  had  been  Gaon  in  918 
for  more  than  four  years,  while  according  to  Sherira  it 
would  be  impossible,  as  it  was  only  in  that  year  that  his 
grandfather  Rabbi  Judah  died,  and  his  death  was  the 
occasion  for  the  dispute  about  the  succession.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  two  sources  are  not  in  disagreement. 
We  are  evidently  troubled  by  a  copyist's  error.  We  must 
put  the  date  of  Rabbi  Judah's  death  one  year  earlier  in 
Sherira,  and  we  must  read  rut?  1»3,  "  about  a  year,"  in 
Nathan  (78,  7,  below),  which  was  misread  as  [riJB>J  '»3,  the 
1  being  taken  for  a  stroke  over  the  ».  This  by  reading 
jnnx  for  d^yniN,  became  pJB>  'l  in  the  Arabic  version. 

This  assumption  is  further  supported  by  the  variant 
reading  "Tn  instead  of  f"H,  for  the  year  of  Rabbi  Judah's 
accession,  and  as  all  agree  in  naming  eleven  years  as  the 
duration  of  his  incumbency,  f"3*l  results  as  the  year  of  his 
death,  and  not  n"31.  In  that  case,  Kohen-Zedek  would 
have  been  in  office  about  a  year  in  rTai. 

THE  PREDECESSOR  OF  SAADIA. 

Another  difference,  at  first  blush  essential,  between  the 
two  sources,  concerns  the  Gaonate  of  Sura.  According 
to  Sherira,  it  was  filled  during  the  eight  years  we  are 
now  interested  in  by  Rabbi  Yom-Tob  ben  Rabbi  Jacob. 
Nathan,  however,  names  Rabbi  Amram  ben  Solomon  as  the 
Gaon  at  Sura  during  the  same  period.  The  explanation  made 
by  Halevy  of  this  portion  of  Nathan's  account  we  repu- 
diated at  an  earlier  stage.  The  difference  between  Sherira 
and  Nathan  can  be  reconciled  only  by  assuming  that  the 
Gaon  went  by  two  names.  There  is  a  precedent  for  this. 
Rabbi  Yom-Tob  had  a  celebrated  predecessor  in  the  presi- 
dency of  the  Sura  Academy,  who  also  bore  the  name 
Yom-Tob,  and  after  his  entrance  into  office  changed  it. 


THE    GAONATE  67 

I  refer  to  Rabbi  Tabyomi  (=Yorn-Tob),  the  son  of  Rab 
Ashi,  who  was  called  Mar  as  chief  of  the  Academy.  It 
is  peculiar  that  Halevy  should  oppose  the  identification 
of  Rabbi  Yom-Tob  with  Rabbi  Amram  on  the  ground  that, 
although  Jews  occasionally  have  two  names,  a  Hebrew  and 
a  non-Hebrew,  it  has  never  happened  that  the  same  man 
bore  two  different  Hebrew  names.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
an  historian  of  the  Geonim  should  write  thus,  failing  to 
recall  that  a  celebrated  Gaon  of  Sura  is  called  Rabbi  Moses 
in  some  sources,  and  Rabbi  rvenE'D  in  others  ?  Or  is 
a  name  with  the  ending  rp  less  Hebrew  than  3lt3  DV? 
One  of  the  oldest  of  the  Geonim  of  Sura,  Rabbi  Shashna, 
had  the  name  rwiB>»  engraved  on  his  official  seal.  So 
Sherira  reports.  In  connexion  with  this,  it  is  worth 
noting  that  Sherira  shortens  the  name  of  the  Sura  Gaon 
Sar  Shalom  to  Shalom.  It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that 
he  should  be  tempted  to  put  so  long  a  name  as  Yom-Tob 
Amram  through  the  same  process  of  abbreviation,  by 
lopping  off  the  first  half.  In  a  much  later  time  the 
case  of  Immanuel  of  Rome  forms  an  interesting  parallel 
to  the  one  under  consideration  in  the  Geonic  time.  In 
the  introduction  to  his  commentary  on  Proverbs  he  calls 
his  father  Jacob,  though  elsewhere  he  appears  only  as 
Shelomoh,  just  as  the  father  of  our  Sura  Gaon  is  Jacob 
to  Sherira  and  Solomon  to  Nathan.  The  probability  is 
that  he  owned  both  names,  nodes'  apJJ',  a  combination  not 
infrequently  met  with  in  later  times1.  There  is  still 
another  Gaon  whose  father's  name  undergoes  a  trans- 
formation in  different  sources.  Rabbi  Paltoi  is  introduced 
as  the  son  of  Abaye  by  Sherira  and  other  authorities, 
while  the  author  of  the  Bpiri  ^3K>,  420,  calls  his  father 
Jacob. 

1  An  example  in  modern  times  is  the  "Lissa  Rav,'1  who  calls  his 
father  nxro  and  also  nico  apr.  The  latter  may  have  received  his  second 
name  by  means  of  ctrn  'i:\c,  in  consequence  of  some  severe  illness, 
though  it  would  be  rather  extraordinary  that  it  should  be  Jacob,  the 
same  name  as  his  son's,  an  unusual  occurrence  among  the  Ashkenazim. 

P  2 


68  THE    GEONIM 

The  only  problem  left  unsolved  in  Nathan's  narrative 
is  his  statement  that  the  successor  of  Rabbi  Amram  ben 
Solomon  and  the  predecessor  of  Saadia,  in  the  Gaonate 
of  Sura,  was  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi,  whom  he  describes  as 
"  the  first  of  his  generation,"  and  as  occupying  the  Gaonate 
for  twenty  years,  until  his  death.  As  a  period  of  twenty 
years  is  out  of  the  question  here,  and  as  3  and  3  are 
letters  easily  confounded,  Graetz  proposes  to  read  2  instead 
of  3,  so  giving  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi  two  years  as  president 
of  the  Academy  instead  of  twenty.  The  objection  made 
by  Halevy  to  this  emendation  of  Graetz  cannot  be  taken 
seriously.  "  How,"  exclaims  Halevy,  "  is  it  possible  to  read 
3  in  this  passage  ?  How  could  the  writer  [Nathan]  have 
been  betrayed  into  the  error  of  calling  one  'the  first  of 
his  generation '  who  officiated  only  two  years  ?  Can  a  man 
become  the  first  of  his  generation  within  two  years  ?  "  It 
is  difficult  to  maintain  one's  gravity  with  such  reasoning. 
Does  Halevy  suppose  any  one  would  think  of  suggesting 
that  Rabbi  Hai  was  called  to  the  Gaonate  as  an  infant 
in  arms?  Nathan  remarks  that  Hai  received  his  exalted 
office  as  the  first,  the  most  distinguished,  scholar  of  his 
time,  and  what  more  natural  than  such  a  remark  ?  Whether 
Rabbi  Hai,  a  contemporary  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  deserved  the 
title  Tnn  B>N1  cannot  be  determined  after  the  lapse  of  time, 
but  Nathan  surely  had  as  good  a  right  to  apply  it  to  Rabbi 
Hai  as  many  a  modern  author  of  Rabbinical  works  has 
to  call  two  and  sometimes  three  of  his  endorsers,  on  one 
and  the  same  page,  r6ian  -03  $>3  t?tn. 

For  the  rest,  this  Hai  apparently  was  not  an  insig- 
nificant personage.  Saadia  did  not  consider  it  beneath 
his  dignity  to  quote  him.  Rabbi  Isaac,  of  Vienna,  in 
his  yi"iT  TIN,  I,  197  a,  top,  cites  an  explanation  with  the 
words  pw  »»n  n  oe>3  '»B  jiw  nnyo  3-11.  As  both  Rabbi 
Hai  ben  David  and  Rabbi  Hai  ben  Nahshon  were  not 
living  at  Saadia's  arrival  in  Babylonia,  it  could  have 
been  no  one  but  this  Hai,  who,  according  to  Nathan, 
died  shortly  before  the  appointment  of  Saadia,  and,  as 


THE    GAONATE  69 

we  know  now1,  Saadia  lived  in  Babylonia  for  a  time 
before  he  was  chosen  Gaon.  In  this  period  he  must 
have  made  the  acquaintance  of  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi,  who 
accordingly  does  not  owe  his  existence  to  the  ignorance 
of  Nathan,  as  Halevy  would  have  us  believe. 

It  is  easy  to  surmise  why  this  Hai  is  not  mentioned 
by  Sherira,  if  one  but  scrutinises  the  words  used  by 
Nathan.  The  remark  introducing  him,  "he  was  the  first 
of  his  generation,"  yields  the  desired  explanation.  After 
the  death  of  Amram  ben  Solomon,  or,  to  call  him  by  the 
name  Sherira  uses,  Yom-Tob  ben  Jacob,  Sura  possessed 
no  dominant  personality  worthy  to  act  as  his  successor 
in  the  Gaonate.  Rabbi  Hai  was  "the  greatest  scholar 
of  his  circle,"  and  as  such  he  presided  over  the  Academy, 
if  not  as  Gaon,  at  least  as  the  leading  spirit.  It  was 
on  his  death  that  the  Exilarch  was  forced  to  entrust 
the  office  to  the  alien  Saadia.  That  is  the  meaning  of 
the  sentence  *niD  nTt?>  jrw  pr  im«3  nn  B*n  rrn  mm. 
Sherira,  who  enumerates  only  the  Geonirn,  had  no  occasion 
to  mention  Rabbi  Hai  ben  Kiyyumi,  who  was  not  a  Gaon. 
He  was  content  to  dispose  of  the  couple  of  years  of  hrs 
activity  as  vice-Gaon  as  the  time  when  the  life  at  Sura 
was  at  its  lowest  ebb. 

THE  CHRONOLOGY  OP  THE  GEONIM. 

We  have  reached  the  end  of  our  investigation,  which 
has  resulted  in  a  brilliant  vindication  of  Nathan.  We 
might  stop  here,  except  that  it  is  proper  to  acknowledge 
the  fact  that  the  dates  used  here  for  the  terms  of  the 
office  of  the  Geonim  were  taken  from  the  table  contributed 
by  A.  Epstein  to  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  s.v.  "Gaon," 

1  This  follows  from  the  letters  in  the  Ben-Me'ir  Controversy,  the 
correspondence  relating  to  which  can  now  be  examined  in  its  entirety 
in  Sokolow,  barn  'c,  19-189.  It  is  noteworthy  that  while  Rabbi  Sherira 
leaves  the  impression  that  Rabbi  Saadia  was  called  from  Egypt  to  the 
Gaonate,  Rabbi  Nathan  properly  represents  Rabbi  Saadia  as  being  in 
Babylonia  when  the  call  came  to  him. 


70  THE    GEONIM 

though  I  was  well  aware  that,  in  spite  of  the  extreme  care 
taken  in  compiling  it,  it  must  remain  inaccurate  in  some 
details,  because  it  is  based  mainly  on  Sherira's  Letter,  of 
which  we  are  not  yet  fortunate  enough  to  possess  an 
unexceptionable  text,  and  Sherira  himself  is  not  blameless 
of  errors  and  inaccuracies,  especially  in  connexion  with  the 
older  chronology. 

How  careful  one  should  be  in  such  matters  is  illustrated  by 
the  following:  In  a  long  inquiry, extending  over  several  pages 
(pp.  240-41,  248),  Halevy  endeavours  to  prove  that  Rabbi 
Zemah  ben  Paltoi  occupied  his  office,  not  nineteen  (B'S),  but 
nine  ('£3)  years.  Halevy's  trouble  was  in  vain.  The  great- 
grandson  of  this  Gaon,  Rabbi  Hezekiah  ben  Samuel,  SMH 
"no,  writes  in  953 l,  in  explicit  words,  that  Rabbi  Paltoi 
and  his  son  Rabbi  Zemah  officiated  "about  forty  years." 
From  this  there  can  be  but  one  inference,  that  Zemah  was 
in  office  at  least  nineteen  years,  which,  added  to  the  sixteen 
years  of  his  father's  incumbency,  amounts  to  thirty-five, 
the  "  about  forty  years  "  of  his  great-grandson.2 

In  the  discussion  of  the  point  whether  Rabbi  Samuel  Resh, 
Kalla,  the  great-grandfather  of  Rabbi  Sherira,  is  identical 
with  Rabbi  Samuel  Resh  Kalla,  the  teacher  of  Rabbi  Aha 
of  Shabha,  Halevy  seems  to  find  no  particular  difficulty 
in  the  fact  that  the  latter  flourished  about  the  middle  of 
the  eighth  century,  while  Rabbi  Judah,  the  son  of  the 
other  Rabbi  Samuel,  died  as  late  as  918,  for  Halevy 
implies  that  this  Rabbi  Judah  attained  to  the  age  of 
one  hundred  and  thirty  years.  Sherira  reports  that  the 
secretary  to  the  Gaon,  Rabbi  Joseph  (814)  was  pao  '2N  'ONi 
1j'2X  "ON,  which,  according  to  Halevy's  interpretation,  means 
that  Rabbi  Judah,  who  died  in  918,  occupied,  in  814, 
the  high  office  of  secretary  to  the  Academy,  and  as  it 
is  not  likely  that  so  important  a  position — Sherira  tells 
us  that  the  secretary  to  Rabbi  Joseph  managed  the  whole 
business  of  the  Academy — would  be  entrusted  to  a  man 

1  J.Q.R.,  XVIII,  401  ;  on  the  writer  of  the  letter  comp.  above,  p.  7,  n.  i. 

2  Comp.  Kiddushin,  12  a  :  CON?  aiip. 


THE    G AGNATE  71 

under  twenty-five,  we  must  fix  the  year  of  his  birth  at 
about  790.  It  is  superfluous  to  defend  so  serious  an 
historian  as  Sherira  against  the  charge  of  imbecility 
involved  in  attributing  such  statements  to  him.  The 
sentence  quoted  means  nothing  but  this,  that  "  the 
grandfather  of  the  Gaon,  who  was  my  grandfather,  was 
the  secretary  to  Rabbi  Joseph  V  Accordingly,  not  Rabbi 
Judah,  but  Rabbi  Judah's  grandfather,  and  the  father  of 
Rabbi  Samuel  Resh  Kalla,  was  the  secretary  to  Rabbi 
Joseph,  and  this  fits  the  dates  naturally,  without  the 
wrench  of  a  miracle.  Rabbi  Judah,  who  died  in  918, 
was  probably  born  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century, 
and  his  grandfather  was  a  personage  of  importance  as  early 
as  814. 

The  Geonic  period  is  thus  the  poorer  by  two  miracles : 
neither  Rabbi  Samuel  nor  his  son  Rabbi  Judah  lived 
beyond  the  age  of  Moses.  But  their  descendant  Sherira 
is  the  gainer  in  his  reputation  for  truthfulness.  Accordingly, 
when  Rabbi  Sherira  speaks  of  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Abba  ben 
Ami  (869)  as  i>NVDB>  n  no  *?v  1:2  p,  we  may  not,  in  imitation 
of  Halevy,  impute  to  him  the  absurdity  of  meaning  that  he 
is  a  grandson  of  Rabbi  Samuel,  who  acted  as  Gaon  in  733. 
Sherira  designates  him  as  a  "  descendant "  of  this  Gaon 2. 

1  Rabbi  Sherira  did  not  care  to  say  fiNan  ':pi  UN  UNI,  because  his 
maternal  great-grandfather,  Rabbi  Zemah,  had  also  been  a  Gaon,  and 
the  expression  ':pi  might  have  been  applied  to  him.  Also  in  the  letter 
in  J.  Q.  R.,  1.  c.,  'IN  UN  UN  is  used  for  a  similar  reason. 

8  Com  p.  also  Rabbi  Sherira,  36,  4,  below,  TOTDN  to  m  '33,  naturally 
not  grandchildren,  but  descendants.  Halevy  should  not  have  permitted 
himself  to  forget  the  Halakah  :  eras  en  nn  D':a  ':i. 


II. 

THE  HALAKIC  LITERATURE  OF  THE  GEONIM. 

HALAKAH  THE  MAIN  FEATUEE  OF  GEONIC  LITERATURE. 

ALL  the  literary  products  of  the  Geonim  bear  the  marks  / 
of  a  transition  period.  The  nihia  OD^n  can  equally  well  be 
considered/Ian  epilogue  to  the  Talmud  asy  a  precursor  of 
Maimonides'  Yad.J  In  an  appraisal  of  the  literary  achieve- 
ments of  the  Geonim,  the  double  character  of  the  influence 
at  work  in  their  day  must  be  borne  in  mind.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  was  the  time  in/which  the[jtext  of  the  Talmudlwas 

/•—  -^^ 

fixed,  and  thec_Targumim  and  Midrashim  received  their 
final  redaction,)  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  beginning  was 
made  in; the  study  of  the  Hebrew  language,  in  Jewish 
philosophy,  and  in  various  other  branches  of  literature 
and  science  that  attained  to  full  development  in  a  later 
period,  the  so-called  Rabbinic  period. 

However,   though   poetry  and   philology,   Targum  and 
Midrash,  mysticism  and  philosophy,  were  all  represented 
in  the   time   of  the   Geonim,  the   Geonic   literature  par 
excellence  is  after  all;  Halakic  in/character  and  purport.  / 
Rabbi  Saadia  is  one  of  the  fathers  of  Bible  exegesis  and 
Hebrew  grammar,  and/he  may  with  propriety  be  called 
the  earliest  Jewish  philosopher — Philo  was  a  Jew  and  a 
philosopher,  but  hardly  a  Jewish  philosopher.    But  Saadia's 
many-sided  effectiveness  cannot  be  put  to/the  account  of 
the  Geonim.     If  he  was  a  notable  grammarian,  a  pioneer    / 
philosopher,  an  original  exegete,  it  was  not  because;he  wasr 
a  Gaon,  but/in  spite  of  having  been  a  Gaon.     Even  after 
the  decay  of  the  Palestinian  Academies,  it  was  in  the  Holy 
Land  that  the  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  cultivation  of 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  73 

the  Haggadah  were  carried  on  zealously  ].  The  Masorah 
is  a  product  of  Palestine  in  the  time  we  are  considering, 
the  greater  number  of  the  later  Midrashim  originated,  there, 
and  there  also  we  must  look  for  the  beginnings  of  the 
Piyyut  and  of  neo-Hebraic  poetry.  But  when  we  come 
to  the  field  of  the  Halakah,  we  must  turn  to  Babylonia, 
whose  Jews  occupy  the  leading  place  as  Halakists.  The 
rivalry  of  old  standing  between  the  Palestinian  and  the 
Babylonian  scholars  was  decided  by  the  work  of  the  Geo- 
nim  once  for  all  time  in  favour  of  the  eastern  centre. 
The  Babylonian  Amoraim  created  a  Talmud ;  the  Geonim 
made  of  it  "  The  Talmud."  Even  the  Palestinians  acknow- 
ledged its  authoritativeness  2.  The  historical  importance  of 
the  Geonim  may  be  summed  up  in  this  expression :  They 
transformed  a  textbook  into  a  code,  and  their  literary 
activity  was  limited  almost  exclusively  to  the  exposition 
and  codifying  of  the  Talmud. 

THE  IMPULSE  TO  GEONIC  LITERARY  ACTIVITY. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  date  from  which  to  reckon 
the  beginnings  of  Geonic  literature.  The  works  preserved 
to  us  originated  as  late  as  the  second  half  of  the  eighth 
century.  But  it  is  more  than  probable  that  written  notes 
of  the  older  Geonim,  as  well  as  their  oral  teachings  and 
traditions,  were  embodied  in  the  works  of  their  successors  3. 
For  instance,  the  important  decision  given  in  3*n,  108  a 
(ed.  Hildesheimer,  442),  relative  to  the  wording  of  a  docu- 

1  The  greater  number  of  the  so-called  rroep  'DO  are,  it  is  true,  Palestinian, 
but  only  their  final  redaction  falls  within  the  Geonic  time.     The  works 
proper  belong  to  the  Tannaitic-Amoraic  period.      The  onrc  'co,  pub- 
lished by  Schonblum  in  his  c'nnc:  onBD  nave,  Lemberg,  1877,  is  likewise 
pre-Geonic  in  its  main  contents.     Rabbenu  Hai,  Vcr,  II,  40,  and  s'rr, 
189,  quotes  a  Halakah  as  a  D^EID  rvnbrn  wrvu,  which  is  found  literally 
in  onEO   'CD  .     0*1210  'on  alone    is  a  Palestinian  Halakic  work  of  the 
Geonim  period,  but  the  author  was  familiar,  not  only  with  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  but  also  with  the  Babylonian  customs  of  his  day.     He  must 
have  spent  some  time  in  a  Babylonian  Academy  as  a  student. 

2  Comp.  above,  p.  4,  n.  x. 

s  Comp.  y'a,  46  :  7o«m  TDTBE  =  Vocw,  II,  53. 


74  THE    GEONIM 

inent  manumitting  a  slave,  is  cited  literally  by  Hai,  but 
not  from  this  source.  He  introduces  it  with  these  words  l  : 
na  'nut?  onno  n^aca  nrw  nnx  D^ijrxn  innna  nr  nan 


an 

"  Thus  wrote  the  former  scholars,  each  in  his  secret  roll, 
in  which  they  recorded,  for  their  own  use,  many  teachings 
originating  with  the  authorities  of  remotest  times,  who 
lived  before  Rabbi  Jehudai." 

Another  passage  in  3"n,96b  (ed.  Hildesheimer,  387-8), 
is  quoted  by  Rabbi  Sherira,  but  again  not  from  this  source  2. 
He  says:  rwoin  nnan  'tniao  jaam  NBTVB  pan  »D'pa—  "The 
scholars  have  the  following  explanation  [of  this  passage] 
as  a  tradition  of  the  Saboraim,  who  lived  after  the 
redaction  of  the  Talmud." 

A  third  passage  in  a*n,  ai  a,  is  quoted  thence  by  Rabbi 
Hai,  but  he  adds3:  ir6  wna  wan  pin  nnan  Nnsian  — 
"  The  great  men  who  lived  after  the  Saboraim  gave  this 
explanation." 

What  Rabbi  Hai  tells  us  regarding  "secret  rolls,"  for 
the  private  use  of  their  owners,  may  help  us  to  form 
an  idea  of  how  Geonic  literature  originated  and  developed. 
When  the  exigencies  of  the  time  made  it  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  Talmud  be  put  into  tangible,  permanent  shape, 
the  prohibition  against  committing  the  Law  to  writing 
was  still  not  abrogated.  It  was  merely  limited  in  its 
application  to  all  productions  except  the  Talmud  :  it  alone 
was  exempt.  However,  here  and  there  a  disciple  of  the 
early  Geonim  transgressed  the  regulation  and  indulged 
himself  to  the  extent  of  keeping  a  "  secret  roll  "  for  his 
own  private  use,  and  recording  there  the  dicta  of  his 
teachers  which  he  desired  to  safeguard  against  oblivion. 
Therein  the  disciples  of  the  Geonim  followed  the  example 
of  their  Talmudic  predecessors.  But  of  actual  literary 


1  Albargeloni,  mirren  'c,  126. 

2  Halevy,  180,  did  not  remember  that  this  passage  occurs  in  :"n 
8  Rabbenu  Nissim,  on  Skabbat,  12  a  ;  comp.  Halevy,  181. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  75 

activity  there  was  none.  The  impulse  to  produce  in  the 
real  sense  was  supplied  later,  when  the  Geonim  became 
the  leaders  of  the  Diaspora,  and  they  were  addressed  by 
Jewish  communities,  remote  and  outlying  as  well  as  near 
by,  for  decisions  on  practical  questions  and  for  explanations 
of  difficult  Talmud  passages.  But  the  Gaonate  as  an 
institution  vested  with  authority  dates,  as  we  have  seen, 
from  the  second  third  of  the  seventh  century.  Before 
its  first  hundred  years  of  institutional  activity  had  elapsed, 
necessity,  having  first  limited  the  application  of  the  com- 
mand against  committing  the  Law  to  writing,  gradually 
abrogated  it  entirely1. 

The  Responsa  are  more  than  the  beginning  of  Geonic 
literature.  They  are  at  the  same  time  its  most  important 
department.  The  phrase  current  in  Rabbinic  literature, 
"  the  Geonim  say,"  or  "  the  Geonim  write,"  means  one 
thing  only,  "  this  is  to  be  found  in  a  Geonic  Responsum." 
But  as  their  Responsa  possess  value  collectively,  in  relation 
to  the  period  as  a  whole,  rather  than  individually,  as 
indicative  of  the  mental  calibre  of  one  or  another  author, 
it  seems  desirable,  before  dealing  with  the  Responsa,  to 
consider  the  Halakic-Talmudic  productions  of  the  period. 

RABBI  AHA,  OF  SHABHA. 

The  oldest  work  of  the  Geonic  time  are  the  Sheeltot 
"Discussions2,"  by  Rabbi  Aha,  of  Shabha.  Of  the  author 
nothing  is  known  except  that  he  left  Babylonia  about 
the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  and  settled  in  Palestine. 

1  Comp.  below,  pp.  97-8  and  119-20. 

2  That  mrtro  means  not  "questions,"  but  rather  "  discussions,"  was 
first  maintained  by  Muller,  Briefe  und  Respotisen,  31,  note  62,  and  this 
view  is  justified  in  detail  by  Mendelsohn  in  R.  A.  J.,  XXXII,  56  et  seq. 
The  latter  makes  no  mention  of  Muller.     As  to  the  relative  age  of  the 
Slieeltot  and  the  a*n,  see  below,  pp.  98  and  106.     In  beginning  the  discus- 
sion of  the  Halakic  literature  of  the  Geonim  with  the  Sheeltot,  I  follow  the 
accepted  order.      My  own  opinion  is,  as  I  show  further  on,  that  the 
nucleus  of  the  Halakot  Geddot  goes  back  to  an  earlier  age  than  the  Shefltot. 


76  THE    GEONIM 

There  was  a  reason  for  his  emigration.  In  filling  the 
Gaonate  of  Pumbedita  the  Exilarch  had  passed  him  by, 
disregarding  his  claims  upon  the  office,  paramount  claims 
by  reason  of  his  position  and  his  scholarship. 

Rabbi  David  of  Estella,  in  the  Provence,  who  lived 
at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  speaks  of 
works  written  by  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Shashna.  If  his 
statement  rests  upon  a  valid  tradition l — Estella  confesses 
that  he  himself  was  acquainted  with  no  works  by  this 
Gaon  except  Responsa — we  should  have  to  remove  the 
initial  date  of  Geonic  literary  activity  to  about  a  century 
earlier  than  accepted  facts  have  hitherto  warranted,  for 
the  Gaon  of  Sura,  Rabbi  Shashna,  also  called  Rabbi 
Mesharshia  ben  Tahlifa,  occupied  his  office  before  689. 
Unluckily,  we  cannot  put  implicit  trust  in  Estella's 
assertions,  as  is  shown  by  the  other  information  he 
gives  us  about  Rabbi  Shashna.  He  describes  him  as 
"the  Gaon  ordained  during  the  lifetime  of  Rabbi  Aha, 
of  Shabha,  who  was  passed  over  at  the  appointment." 
What  probably  happened  was  that  Estella  wrote  that 
••wnoJ  received  the  Gaonate  instead  of  Rabbi  Aha,  and 
then  he  confounded  this  Natronai  with  the  celebrated 
Gaon  Natronai  ben  Hilai,  the  author  of  a  number  of 
Responsa  and  supposed  author  of  a  Halakic  compendium  2. 
In  addition,  a  copyist  twisted  wniM  into  WVV.  The 
next  statement  made  by  Estella,  that  Rabbi  Aha  lived 
after  Rabbi  Simon  N1"p  3,  he  derived  from  Rabbi  Menahem 
Meiri 4,  who  in  turn  took  it  from  the  chronicle  of  Rabbi 
Abraham  Ibn  Daud.  RaBeD,  who  had  a  very  corrupt 
text  of  Rabbi  Sherira's  Letter  before  him,  may  have  based 
his  statement  upon  the  passage  about  Rabbi  Samuel,  33,  2, 
below.  The  unusual  name,  "IE  3~i  ID,  together  with  the 

1  A  Kabbalistic  author  of  the  fourteenth  century  mentions  a  *CTDTD  '",, 
Z.H.  B.,  XII,  51.  Is  it  a  fictitious  name?  2  Comp.  below,  p.  119. 

3  The  origin  as  well  as  the  pronunciation  of  this  name  is  very 
doubtful.  With  Kahira  it  certainly  has  nothing  to  do. 

*  Me'iri's  statements  about  the  Geonim  are  full  of  errors,  as  proved 
below,  p.  89. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  77 


unusual  geographical  designation  npsi,  which,  as  we 
have  seen1,  was  misunderstood  even  in  modern  times, 
was  "  emended  "  to  read  KTpn  'B>  11  -ovni.  This  supposed 
passage  of  Sherira's  is  translated  into  Hebrew  by  RaBeD, 
who,  after  mentioning  the  Gaonate  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ben 
Mari,  as  he  calls  him,  adds  the  words  nT  taicc?  'n  '•oval 
jn«p  pyot?  'n  iTn  (63,  6). 

Accordingly,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  removing 
R-abbi  Aha  from  the  place  conceded  to  him  as  the  earliest 
Halakic  author  after  the  close  of  the  Talmud.  But  if 
the  time  of  Rabbi  Aha  remains  as  before,  the  scene  of 
his  literary  activity  is  open  to  question.  Palestine  and 
Babylonia  each  urges  its  claim  upon  the  Sheeltot.  Though 
the  work  is  based  exclusively  upon  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
and  the  Palestinian  Talmud  is  absolutely  ignored  in  it,  yet 
it  is  certain  that  Rabbi  Aha  did  not  compose  his  book  until 
after  he  had  settled  in  Palestine,  whither  he  went  when  the 
Exilarch,  for  personal  reasons,  installed  Rabbi  Natronai,  the 
secretary  of  Rabbi  Aha,  as  Gaon  of  Pumbedita.  Halevy  is 
no  less  convinced  (pp.  132,  211-13)  of  Rabbi  Aha's  having 
written  his  work  before  leaving  Babylonia  than  he  is  of  his 
having  drawn  upon  the  Palestinian  Talmud  in  writing  it, 
in  the  use  of  which  source,  he  maintains,  Rabbi  Aha  was 
like  all  the  Geonim  —  they  all  knew  it2.  I  hope  to  treat 

1  Comp.  above,  p.  49. 

2  Halevy's  remark   on  Rab  Amram's   relation   to  the   Yerushalmi  is 
characteristic.     In  "j*j  ,  58,  we  have  Rab  Amram's  Responsum  addressed 
to  the  scholars  of  Barcelona,  who  were  led  to  speak  of  a  YerusJialmi 
passage  in  their  question,  because  its  relation  to  the  Babli  was  not  quite 
clear  to  them.     Rab  Amram  writes  :  "  And  the  dictum  of  the  Yentshalmi 
similar  to  this  [of  the  Babli]  which  you  quote,  is  not  known  to  us." 
Ergo,  reasons  Halevy,  it  can  be  seen  that  the  Yerushalmi  was  disseminated 
everywhere  !     If  this  passage  proves  anything,  it  is  an  endorsement  of 
Rapoport,  Frankel,  and  Schorr,  against  whom  Halevy  directs  his  polemics. 
Their  view  is  that  the  Babylonian  Geonim  did  not  know  the  Yerushalmi, 
but  it  was  studied  by  the  scholars  of  the  aiyo  ,  that  is,  of  Spain  and 
especially  North  Africa.   Also  Halevy  ignores  the  fact  that  this  Responsum 
is  not  really  by  Rab  Amram,  but  by  Rabbenu  Hai,  to  whom  it  is  ascribed 
in  n'c,   119,  by  Albargeloni,  D'nyn  'c,  212,  and  by  Nahmanides,  rrcrrto, 
Pesahim,  X,  3. 


78  THE    GEONIM 

elsewhere  of  the  relation  of  the  Geonim  to  the  Yerushalmi 
in  detail.  Here  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  discussion  of 
this  one  point,  whether  or  not  it  was  used  in  the  Sheeltot 1. 


THE  SHEELTOT  AND  THE  YERUSHALMI. 

Halevy  believes  he  has  found  two  quotations  from  the 
Yerushalmi  in  the  Sheeltot,  enough  to  decide  the  question 
in  his  mind.  But  a  superficial  examination  of  the  passages 
suffices  to  show  that  resort  to  the  Yerushalmi  is  precluded. 
In  Yer.  Bezah,  I,  60  a,  the  inference  is  made  from  the  three 
superfluous  words,  nii>  Kin  .  .  .  ^,  in  Exod.  xii.  16,  that, 
although  the  preparation  of  food  is  permitted  on  holidays, 
it  is  forbidden  to  reap,  grind,  and  bolt.  Each  superfluous 
word  points  to  a  prohibited  form  of  work.  The  passage  in 
the  Sheeltot,  I,  158-9,  supposed  to  correspond  to  the  Bezah 
passage,  reads :  "  Even  work  necessary  for  the  preparation 
of  food  is  permitted  only  if  it  is  of  a  sort  habitually  done 
on  the  same  day,  such  as  slaughtering,  baking,  and  cooking, 
but  grinding  and  bolting,  which  can  be  done  before  the 
holiday,  may  not  be  done  thereon,  for  the  Scriptures  (Exod. 
xii.  1 6)  excluded  them,  saying,  'that  only,'  cooking,  baking, 
and  the  like,  may  be  done 2." 

While  the  Yerushalmi  specifies  three  definite  kinds  of 
work  excluded  by  the  use  of  three  superfluous  words  in 
the  Scriptures,  Rabbi  Aha  deduces  a  principle,  applicable 
to  all  work  connected  with  the  preparation  of  food.  This 
principle  he  finds  implied  in  the  113^,  "  that  only,"  of  the 
Scriptures,  excluding  all  kinds  of  work  which  as  a  rule 
are  performed  days  before  the  food  is  prepared  for  the 
table  in  the  restricted  sense.  So  fundamental  is  this  dif- 
ference between  the  Sheeltot  and  the  Yerushalmi,  that 
even  if  it  were  impossible  to  trace  Rabbi  Aha's  real  source, 

1  On  the  relation  of  the  Sheeltot  to  the  Yerushalmi,  see  the  articles  by 
Dr.  Poznanski  and  Dr.  Kaminka,  in  the   Hebrew  periodical   cipn,  I, 
which  appeared  while  this  book  was  going  through  the  press. 

2  Comp.  also  Sheelta,  CVII,  143. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  79 

we  might  still  be  sure  that  he  was  not  deriving  his 
support  from  the  Yerushalmi.  Fortunately,  we  are  now 
able  to  assert  that  his  source  was  the  Mekilta  de  Rabbi 
Shiirne'on,  17,  where  his  statement  is  found  verbatim. 
Dr.  Hoffmann,  the  learned  editor  of  the  Mekilta,  would 
probably  not  have  attempted  the  correction  of  the  text 
according  to  the  Yerushalmi  if  he  had  had  the  passage  in 
the  Sheeltot  in  mind.  This  Mekilta,  designated  by  Rabbi 
Hai  Gaon  in  Harkavy,  107,  as  21  '31  nQ'D,  in  contradis- 


tinction to  the  Mekilta  of  Rabbi  Ishmael,  which  he  calls 
"the  Palestinian,"  was  naturally  well  known  to  the 
Babylonian  Rabbi  Aha,  and  as  he  not  infrequently  made 
use  of  the  other  Halakic  Midrashim,  his  resort  to  the 
Mekilta  de  Rabbi  Skimeon  in  the  passage  under  ex- 
amination calls  for  no  remark.  Of  course,  there  is  no 
intention  of  denying  that  a  close  connexion  exists  between 
the  Mekilta  passage  and  Rabbi  Hezekiah's  dictum  in  the 
Yerushalmi.  Rabbi  Hezekiah  modified  an  old  Halakah 
in  accordance  with  his  own  general  system.  The  old 
Halakah,  as  given  in  the  Mekilta,  forbade  all  work  con- 
nected with  the  preparation  of  food  which  as  a  rule  is 
not  done  on  the  day  on  which  the  food  is  consumed. 
Illustrations  are  adduced  —  reaping,  grinding,  bolting.  These 
and  such  as  these  are  not  permissible,  the  prohibition 
being  indicated  by  the  word  113^  in  the  Scriptural  passage. 
Rabbi  Hezekiah,  a  consistent  representative  of  the  school 
of  Rabbi  Akiba1,  who,  took  the  particles  IN  and  Nin  as 
"  exclusives,"  conceived  the  three  sorts  of  work  mentioned, 
not  as  illustrations  of  a  general  principle,  but  as  an 
exhaustive  enumeration  of  specific  cases,  finding  a  justi- 
fication therefor  in  the  three  Scriptural  words,  vob,  Kin, 
and  -]K. 

The  other  Yerushalmi  quotation  found  by  Halevy  in 
the  Sheeltot,  XXIH,  69,  requires  mere  collation  of  the 
two  passages  to  demonstrate  how  untenable  his  con- 

1  See  the  discriminating  remark  made  by  Epstein  in  nrjiaijnD,  53  et  seq. 


8o  THE    GEONIM 

tention  is.  Rabbi  Aha  writes:  ntf  ffb  KB£  n^  ntf  »ai 
mb  -IOK  x^>  1^  tanin  •£  isio  n^  -I»K  w  •£  ^n»  •£.  In 
Fer.  Nedarim,  X,  42  a,  we  read :  5>D3  7^  1S1O  1DNB>  fpn 
nyi3K>  |N3  pN  I'M  IW  P«  "1B1K  fptni  .  .  .  D1^3  "IEN  X^  7^-  If 

Rabbi  Aha  had  actually  used  the  Yerushalmi,  it  would 
be  inexplicable  why  he  made  so  decided  a  change  in  the 
formula  for  the  absolution  from  vows  by  a  scholar,  mnn 
D3n.  Halevy  permitted  himself  to  be  misled  by  a  marginal 
note  by  Rabbi  Isaiah  Berlin  on  the  Sheeltot,  referring  to 
the  Yerushalmi  passage.  In  reality,  Rabbi  Aha  repro- 
duces the  wording  of  the  Babli  Nedarim,  Jjb,  where 
1^>  tan  "jb  1210  is  given  as  the  usual  formula  for  ^>jn  man. 

The  attempts  made  by  Reifmann,  in  the  Bet-Talmud, 
III,  52-3,  to  prove  Rabbi  Aha's  use  of  the  Yerushalmi, 
are  by  far  more  serious  and  painstaking.  Nevertheless,  his 
conclusions  are  hasty.  Scrutiny  reveals  that  not  one  of 
the  five  passages  adduced  by  Reifmann,  in  support  of  his 
opinion  that  the  Sheeltot  drew  upon  the  Yerushalmi,  can 
be  said  with  certainty  to  have  been  taken  by  Rabbi  Aha 
from  the  Palestinian  Talmud.  His  words  in  I,  2,  of  the 
Sheeltot,  regarding  Sabbath  garments,  agree  literally  with 
Pesikta  R.,  XXIII,  H5b,  and  not  with  Yer.  Pedh,  VIII, 
21  b,  top,  an  agreement  to  which  Friedmann  in  his  notes 
on  the  Pesikta  called  attention1.  It  is  therefore  more 
probable  that  Rabbi  Aha  used  either  the  Pesikta  or  one 
of  the  sources  of  the  Pesikta,  than  that  he  used  the  Yeru- 
shalmi. Weiss's  statement,  25,  note  6,  that  the  Pesikta  is 
younger  than  the  Sheeltot,  is  not  a  serious  objection.  What- 
ever may  be  its  age  in  its  present  form,  no  one  entertains 
a  doubt  that  a  very  considerable  portion  of  the  Pesiktot 
is  as  old  as  the  Talmud. 

The  opinion  of  Rabbi  Aha  (XL VII,  146),  that  the  reason 

1  Comp.  also  Buber,  Bet  Talmud,  III,  210,  who  entertains  the  same 
opinion  as  Friedmann,  though  he  does  not  name  him.  However,  this 
passage  in  the  Sheelta  does  not  seem  to  have  belonged  to  the  work  in  its 
original  form.  It  is  missing  in  most  of  the  MSS.,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
first  instalment  of  Dr.  Kaminka's  Sheeliot,  Vienna,  1908. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  8 1 

for  keeping  the  Day  of  Atonement  only  one  day,  is  that 
a  two  days'  fast  might  endanger  life,  has  its  parallel,  not 
in  the  Yerushalmi  alone,  Hallah,  I,  57  c,  but  also  in  the 
Babli  Rosh  ha-Shanah,  21  a,  where  Rabbi  Nahman  ex- 
claims against  the  Palestinian  who  would  have  had  him 
fast  a  second  day,  "  Death  will  be  his  (euphemism  for 
'my')  end!" 

Jeremiah  xvii.  22,  is  cited  by  both  the  Yervdutlmi,  at 
the  beginning  of  Shabbat,  and  the  Babli,  Bezah,  12  a,  as 
the  basis  for  the  prohibition  of  carrying  burdens  on  the 
Sabbath.  Hence  its  use  for  the  same  purpose  in  the 
Sheeltot,  XIL,  156,  proves  nothing  conclusive  as  to  Rabbi 
Aha's  use  of  the  Yerushalmi. 

The  explanation  given  by  the  Sheeltot1,  LV,  186,  of  the 
Babli  Baba  Batra,  165  a,  coincides  with  the  view  of 
the  Yer.  Gittin,  IX,  50  c.  Nevertheless,  Rabbi  Aha's  words 
are  not  a  quotation  from  the  YerusJtalmi,  but  merely  an 
explanation,  his  explanation,  of  the  Babli  passage. 

That  the  formula  for  pen  ^oa  given  by  Rabbi  Aha,  LXXIV, 
26-7,  is  not  derived  from  Yer.  Pesahim,  II,  28  d,  Reifmann 
might  have  deduced  from  the  language.  Not  only  is  it 
Hebrew  in  the  Yerushalmi  and  Aramaic  in  the  Sheeltot, 
but  the  Aramaic  is  Babylonian  and  not  Palestinian.  Instead 
of  rrovfn  ....  NT>en,  the  Palestinians  would  have  said 
nwon  ....  Ny^en.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  by  the  way, 
that  in  the  rituals  the  formulas  vary  between  ....  NTOH 
iTjv:n  and  rrrwn  ....  xjwn.  The  Palestinian  wording  of 
the  formula  and  the  Babylonian  have  come  down  to  us 
side  by  side.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  Yerushalmi 
cites  the  formula  on  the  authority  of  the  Babylonian 
teacher  Rab.  Its  use  by  Babylonian  Jews  can,  therefore, 
be  presupposed  without  assuming  that  they  had  to  derive  it 
from  a  source  foreign  to  them.  Comp.  Ratner,  T^IX,  ad  loc. 

Besides  these  seven  passages  enumerated  by  Reifmann 
and  Halevy,  I  would  call  attention  to  two  more,  which, 

1  Reifmann,  in  his  essay  in  the  Bet  Talmud,  III,  53,  did  not  know  that 
the  Tur  Hoshen  Mishpat,  51,  meant  this  Yerushalmi  passage. 
I  G 


82  THE    GEONIM 

at  first  sight,  would  seem  to  confirm  the  opinion  that  Rabbi 
Aha  used  the  Yerushalmi  for  his  Sheeltot.  But  a  closer 
examination  disposes  of  them  as  of  the  others.  In  contents 
the  sentence  in  LXXIII,  25  *,  .  .  .  N1H  »jy  "pi  tt6,  comes 
pretty  close  to  the  Yerushalmi  statement  in  Hallah,  II, 
58  d,  top.  And  yet  it  need  not  be  supposed  that  Rabbi 
Aha  did  not  derive  his  view  from  the  Babli  Shabbat,  76  b. 

The  Haggadistic  reason  for  the  four  cups  of  wine  formu- 
lated by  Rabbi  Aha,  LXXVII,  36,  is  found  in  the  Yer. 
Pesahim,  X,  57  c,  top,  but  also  in  Genesis  R.,  LXXXVIII. 
As  Rabbi  Aha's  use  of  the  Haggadic  Midrashim  in  other 
parts  of  his  work  is  not  open  to  doubt,  the  probabilities 
are  in  favour  of  his  having  drawn  upon  the  Midrash 
rather  than  the  Yerushalmi  as  his  source  —  a  likelihood 
that  is  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  for  centuries  after 
Rabbi  Aha  it  was  still  customary  to  quote  Haggadic 
passages  from  the  Midrashim,  even  when  they  occurred  in 
the  Talmudim  2.  Moreover,  Rabbi  Aha's  book,  as  a  whole, 
is  planned  after  the  model  of  the  Haggadic  Midrashim 
on  the  Pentateuch,  which  would  argue  a  natural  preference 
for  the  Genesis  Rabba  as  compared  with  the  Yerushalmi. 

If,  as  to  the  last  passage,  it  must  be  conceded  that  our 
data  do  not  permit  us  to  go  beyond  the  mere  supposition 
that  Rabbi  Aha  drew  his  Haggadot  from  sources  other 
than  the  Yerushalmi,  there  can  yet  be  no  doubt  that  the 
legend  which  he  relates  about  Artaban  and  Rabbi,  CXLV, 
114,  is  not  taken  from  the  Yerushalmi  Pedh,  I,  i5d, 
bottom,  but  from  a  Haggadic  source,  and  a  Babylonian 
Haggadic  source  at  that.  The  passage  i»¥j^  —  DJ33  TO  occurs 
neither  in  the  Yerushalmi,  1.  c.,  nor  in  the  parallel  passage 
in  Genesis  R.,  LXXXV,  end.  In  contents  it  reminds  one 
strikingly  of  the  Babylonian  legend  about  the  healing  of 


1  The  words  Ncno  MITT  "irmb  mean  "  to  mix  the  chaff  with  the  grain 
again.'' 

2  Bashi,  for  instance,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch,  frequently 
quotes  Genesis  R.  and  other  Midrashim,  though  he  might  have  found  the 
same  passages  in  the  Yerushalmi. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  83 

the  princess  by  Rabbi  Simon  ben  Yohai ',  and  linguistically 
it  betrays  Babylonian  origin  by  the  use  of  nit?,  "she-devil2." 
The  Palestinians  knew  no  female  demons,  and  certainly  not 
the  word  applied  to  them  by  Rabbi  Aha. 

The  reference  to  Ezra  x.  8,  as  the  Scriptural  basis  for 
the  excommunicating  power  of  the  court,  in  the  Sheeltot, 
CXXX,  45,  Rabbi  Aha  did  not  derive,  as  might  at  first 
.sight  be  supposed,  from  Yer.  Moed  Katan,  III,  81  d. 
His  text  in  the  Babli  Moed  Ifatan,  i6a,  doubtless  read 
n^wn  lino  bn^  wm  sran  pnnroi  f^oi  instead  of  j^oi 
ins  nw  a»nn  pennon. 

The  whole  detailed  discussion  of  court  procedure  in  the 
Sheeltot  is  taken  literally  from  the  passage  in  the  Babli, 
and  it  would  be  difficult  to  suggest  a  reason  for  Rabbi 
Aha's  resorting  to  the  Yerushalmi  for  a  single  point, 
especially  as  he  completely  ignores  the  only  new  legal 
aspect  presented  in  the  Yeruskalmi 3.  The  assumption 
here  made  cannot  be  objected  to  as  forced,  because  we 
know  that  Rabbi  Aha's  text  of  the  Babli  frequently  varies 
from  ours,  and  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  where 
our  text  is  manifestly  corrupt,  the  reading  offered  by  him 
is  an  essential  improvement 4. 

1  Briefly  in  the  Talmud,  Meilah,  17  b  ;  in  detail  in  :*n,  ed.  Hildesheimer, 
601-4 ;  and  Jellinek,  Bet  ha-Midrash,  VI,  128-30.  About  a  Genizah 
fragment  of  this  legend,  see  a  note  by  the  present  writer  in  the  Z.  E.  B., 
XI,  127. 

8  The  Biblical  mo  was  translated  by  "sedan-chair"  in  Palestine,  and 
by  "  she-devil '' in  Babylonia  ;  Gittin,68&.  The  sources  enumerated  in 
note  a  (with  the  exception  of  the  Talmud  reference)  also  use  rmr  in  the 
sense  of  "she-devil.'1  The  popular  belief  in  Babylonia  could  not  get 
away  from  Lilith  and  the  she-devils  akin  to  her.  Another  noteworthy 
expression  is  lac,  occurring  in  this  passage  of  the  Sheeltot,  but  in  this 
sense  not  used  in  the  Yerushalmi. 

3  The  Yerushalmi  speaks  of  excommunication  for  a  person  who  does  not 
obey  a  summons  to  court  within  three  days.     The  Babli  and  Rabbi  Aha 
say  nothing  about  the  term. 

4  According  to  our  text,  the  same  used  by  Rashi,  mn  serves  as  proof 
for  cin,  which  contains  curses,  but  that  curses  may,  in  certain  circum- 
stances, be  employed  the  Talmud  derives  from  Neh.  xiii.  25,  where  Db^Ni 
is  used  !      Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  correct  reading  is  : 

G  2 


84  THE    GEONIM 

It  must  be  admitted  that  circumspect  care  is  required 
in  dealing  with  the  Talmud  text  of  Rabbi  Aha.  The  pas- 
sage in  the  Sheeltot,  IIV,  177,  on  ro-a  u"£>  spn,  is  a  striking 
illustration.  In  form  it  is  much  closer  to  Yer.  Berakot, 
I,  2  d,  than  to  the  corresponding  Babli  text,  Berakot,  42  a. 
In  his  learned  scholia  D^emi  jvx  nariK,  1  1  ,  ad  loc.,  Ratner 
does  not  hesitate  to  attribute  it  to  the  Yerushalmi  as 
Rabbi  Aha's  source,  and  yet  it  can  readily  be  demonstrated, 
from  the  words  of  the  Sheeltot,  that  it  goes  back  to  the 
Babli.  In  the  first  place,  the  dictum  regarding  the  washing 
of  the  hands  is  attributed  to  the  same  Amora,  Rabbi 
Hayyah  bar  Ashi,  in  the  Babli  as  in  the  Sheeltot,  while 
in  the  Yerushalmi,  Rabbi  Zeira  cites  it  in  the  name  of 
Rabbi  Abba  bar  Jeremiah,  and  these  latter  personages 
appeared  in  the  Yerushalmi  text  of  the  Geonim,  as  can 
be  seen  from  the  citations  in  Ratner.  But  there  is  a  more 
important  difference,  the  radical  difference  between  the 
conception  of  the  Babli  and  the  conception  of  the  Yeru- 
shalmi. According  to  the  Babli,  the  Halakah  ordains  that 
the  washing  of  hands  must  be  followed  at  once  by  the 
saying  of  grace  after  meals,  while  the  Yerushalmi  holds 
that  another  subject  is  dealt  with,  the  washing  of  the 
hands  before  the  meal,  to  be  followed  directly  by  the  bene- 
diction prescribed  for  it.  We  are  here  not  interested  in 
determining  which  of  the  two  is  the  correct  conception1. 
Rabbi  Aha,  however,  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt  as  to  his 


viw  'JXD  rrbn  HION  '11  D'npi  JMQ  tab  mini  TKTOOT  JNO  tab  jrnnsn  }~n 
murp  TON  ....  rnr>,  and  not  only  was  this  the  reading  known  to 
Rabbi  Aha,  but  it  was  also  that  of  the  anonymous  Gaon  in  01*03,  217. 
What  the  Talmud  wanted  to  derive  from  the  verse  is  that  the  great 
excommunication,  Din,  forbids  all  intercourse  with  the  excommunicated. 
As  for  the  power  of  the  court  to  decree  excommunication,  that  the  Talmud 
derived  from  Ezra  x.  8,  as  may  be  seen  from  Rabbi  Aha's  text.  Comp. 
also  Rabbi  Hananel  on  this  passage,  the  text  of  which,  as  he  had  it,  also 
deviates  from  ours. 

1  The  attempts  to  harmonise  the  contradictory  statements  in  the 
Yerushalmi  and  the  Bdbli  on  this  point  are  futile,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Rabbi  Elijah  Wilna  countenances  them  in  his  commentary  on  the  Orah 
Hayyim,  §  166,  2. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  85 

opinion  in  the  matter.  It  accords  so  entirely  with  the 
view  of  the  Babli,  that  every  possibility  is  precluded  of 
tracing  his  citation  back  to  the  Yerushalmi.  It  is  true, 
the  Scriptural  passages  justifying  the  Halakah  are  enumer- 
ated only  in  the  Yerushalmi,  which  might  suggest  the 
idea  that,  though  Rabbi  Aha  espouses  the  view  of  the 
Babli,  he  yet  resorts  to  the  Yerushalmi  for  proofs.  But 
this  suggestion  may  be  considered  disposed  of  by  the  fact 
that  the  MS.  Paris  of  the  Babli  contains  the  Scriptural 
passages  in  the  Babli.  There  is  thus  no  reason  why  Rabbi 
Aha  should  have  had  to  resort  to  the  Yerushalmi. 

A  valuable  passage  for  the  present  investigation  is  offered 
by  the  Sheeltot,  XCVI,  104-5.  A-  case  is  there  discussed 
which  was  submitted  by  Samuel  to  his  friend  Rab,  but 
which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Talmud.  In  his  t?SJn  ^J?3, 
«d.  Berlin,  zd,  the  RaBeD  comments  upon  Rabbi  Aha's 
statement  with  the  words,  "  I  do  not  know  where  he  found 
it."  But  the  RaBeD's  father-in-law,  Rabbi  Abraham  of 
Narbonne,  in  his  EshJcol,  I,  117,  gives  the  Yerushalmi  as 
Rabbi  Aha's  source.  Whether  or  not  the  author  of  the 
Eshkol  had  in  mind  Yer.  Ketubot,  II,  26  c,  which  contains 
a  statement  similar  to  that  in  the  Sheeltot,  cannot  be  main- 
tained with  any  degree  of  certainty.  He  may  have  used,  as 
is  frequently  done  by  the  old  authors 1,  ^em11  to  designate 
some  apocryphal  source  or  other.  However  this  may  be, 
that  Rabbi  Aha  did  not  use  the  Yerushalmi  passage  in 
Ketubot  admits  of  no  doubt.  His  presentation  of  the  case 
is  very  much  more  detailed  than  that  of  the  Yerushalmi, 
and  the  peculiarity  of  Rabbi  Aha,  so  far  from  being  a 
tendency  to  elaborate  a  passage,  is  to  condense  the  Tal- 
mudic  sources.  There  is  a  positive  and  clinching  proof, 
besides,  to  show  that  his  source  was  a  Babylonian  and  not 

1  To  this  peculiarity  Rapoport  drew  attention  in  his  biography  of 
Rabbenu  Nissim,  note  39,  and  in  recent  times  such  so-called  Yerushalmi 
quotations  were  collected  by  Buber,  Epstein,  and  Wolf  Rabbinowitz,  and 
published  in  Luncz's  D'telT,  VII.  Rabbi  Aaron,  of  Lunel,  n*-\N,  II,  179, 
calls  our  Tamidt  Yerushalmi  Tumid  ;  comp.  also  below,  p.  157. 


86  THE    GEONIM 

a  Palestinian  work.  The  final  phrase,  jwr  pjniK  rw»  -&«nT 
makes  it  plain ;  this  expression  occurs  nowhere  but  in  the 
Babylonian  Talmud 1.  Another  proof  of  the  Babylonian 
origin  is  afforded  by  the  proverb  cited,  NB«n  K3*TO  ir^n 
nTDVn  rcb,  also  a  Babylonian  locution.  Moreover,  it  appears 
from  a  comparison  of  this  passage  with  "vntni,  II,  145-6, 
that  our  text  of  kheSheeltot  has  been  considerably  shortened2; 
the  author  of  the  We-Hizhir  had  the  complete  text  before 
him,  and  as  he  has  it,  it  could  not  have  been  taken  from 
Ter.  Ketubot,  which  is  by  far  not  so  full  of  details.  It 
is  not  an  impossible  supposition  that  Rabbi  Aha's  text 
of  Babli  Ketubot,  22  a-b,  contained  his  whole  statement, 
while  but  a  few  words  have  been  preserved  in  our  Talmud 
editions. 


PLAN  AND  PUKPOSE  OF  THE  SHEELTOT. 

In  spite  of  all  the  results  attained  above,  it  would  still 
be  an  over-hasty  conclusion  to  infer  that  Rabbi  Aha  wrote 
his  work  in  the  years  of  his  life  in  Babylonia.  Internal 
and  external  reasons  alike  militate  against  this  assumption. 
There  are,  in  the  first  place,  a  number  of  linguistic 
peculiarities  in  the  Sheeltot,  which  clearly  betray  the 
Palestinian  origin  of  the  work.  With  a  Babylonian  like 
Rabbi  Aha,  who  handled  the  dialect  of  his  native  land 
with  extraordinary  skill,  they  can  be  explained  only  as 
marks  left  upon  his  style  by  the  Palestinian  Aramaic  of 
his  later  abode3.  Here  are  some  of  the  idiosyncrasies  on 

1  Ketubot,  22  b,  and  six  other  passages,  marked  in  the  margin  of  the 
Talmud. 

*  The  application  of  this  proverb  becomes  intelligible  only  in  the  form 
it  has  in  the  Tmm  ;  Brull  (JahrMcfier,  II,  149-50),  who,  contrary  to  his 
usual  habit,  has  treated  this  question  of  Rabbi  Aha's  use  of  the  Yerushalmi 
in  a  very  superficial  way,  decides  in  the  affirmative,  essentially  on  the 
basis  of  this  passage. 

3  If  Rabbi  Aha  actually  delivered  lectures  in  Palestine,  which  seems 
very  probable,  the  influence  of  the  Palestinian  Aramaic  is  all  the  more 
to  be  expected. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  87 

which  the  assertion  just  made  is  based.  Rabbi  Aha  uses  ' 
NJ/n  NJV:n»  indiscriminately  for  Mishnah  and  Baraita,  while 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  is  unfailing  in  drawing  a  sharp 
distinction  between  prwno,  the  Mishnah,  and  NJroriD,  a 
Baraita.  In  this  respect,  Rabbi  Aha  follows  the  habit 
of  the  Terushalmi,  which  conveys  both  concepts  by  NrwnD. 
The  interrogative  pronoun  NTTI,  an  exclusively  Palestinian 
expression,  is  frequently  used  by  Rabbi  Aha.  Similarly, 
the  introductory  formula  of  many  of  the  Sheeltot,  NB^, 
peculiar  to  our  author,  is  of  Palestinian  derivation.  In  the 
Babylonian  dialect  the  only  permissible  forms  would  be 
or  Nsb^2.  The  other  formula  used  by  our  author, 
D"I2,  is  also  Palestinian ;  in  the  Aramaic  of  Babylonia, 
D~i3  is  not  used  at  all,  and  the  connotation  given  to  "pY 
by  Rabbi  Aha  also  corresponds  to  its  Palestinian  rather 
than  its  Babylonian  meaning 3.  In  connexion  with  this 
linguistic  analysis,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Pales- 
tinian forms  of  speech  were  current  in  official  and  legal 
documents.  With  the  customs  and  regulations  which  the 
Babylonian  Jews  imported  from  their  Palestinian  brethren, 
they  borrowed  also  the  language  garb  in  which  they  were 
clothed  in  their  original  home.  From  the  lexicographical 
point  of  view,  the  Targum  Onkelos  is  the  Aramaic  of  the 
Babylonian  dialect,  but  its  grammatical  structure  stands 
the  most  rigid  tests  imposed  by  a  correct  Palestinian 
Aramaic.  The  formulas  prescribed  by  the  Babli 4  for  legal 

1  The  passages  are  enumerated  by  Reifmann,  1.  c.,  though  he  failed 
to  notice  that  they  betrayed  Palestinian  influence.  On  this  difference 
between  the  Babli  and  th£  Yerushalmi,  comp.  Lewy,  Ueber  . .  .  Mischna  des 
Abba  Saul,  4,  note  2,  and  the  article  on  "Baraita''  by  the  present  writer, 
in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 

3  The  root  F|"J«  disappeared  from  the  Babylonian,  with  the  exception 
of  WETIN,  which  may  be  a  Palestinian  terminus  technicus.     Instead  of  it, 
nV  is  used,  to  which,  of  course,  f]"rQ  belongs,  not,  as  Kohut,  s.  v.,  says, 
to  rpx.      He  also  reads  mc'nto,  deriving  it  from  the  Aphel,  though  the 
other  form  N:cbv  assures  the  reading  HJD^N  from  the  Kal. 

*  Rabbi  Aha  uses  -pjt  in  the  sense  of  "doubtful",  as  the  Yerushalmi 
does.  The  use  of  the  word  in  the  Babli  is  very  different. 

4  Comp.,  for  instance,  Gittin,  85  b,  and  what  is  said  upon  the  passage 
in  G.  S.,  p.  166. 


88  THE    GEONIM 

documents  are  likewise  in  the  Aramaic  dialect  of  Palestine, 
and  it  would  not  be  unnatural  to  find  that  the  turns  of 
speech  used  in  the  Academies  and  in  the  houses  of  prayer 
were  Palestinian.  As  for  the  formula  THV  D"Q,  Nathan 
says  explicitly  (84,  12)  that  it  was  used  by  the  Geonirn 
in  their  lectures.  In  view  thereof,  it  is  very  suggestive 
that  Nathan  himself  offers  us  the  Babylonian  form,  K^iD^, 
while  Rabbi  Aha  uses  Nn^Nt?,  the  Palestinian  form  x. 

These  internal  proofs  of  the  Palestinian  origin  of  the 
Sheeltot  are  strengthened  by  reasons  of  an  external  nature. 
The  most  important  Halakic  product  of  the  Geonic  time, 
the  Sheeltot  are  yet  not  mentioned  by  a  single  one  of  the 
Geonim,  excepting  only  the  last  of  them,  Rabbi  Hai. 
The  latter  has  only  one  reference  to  Rabbi  Aha's  work, 
to  be  found  in  Harkavy's  Collection,  191.  But  of  Rabbi 
Hai  we  know  2  that  he  was  in  correspondence  with  Pales- 
tinian scholars,  and  it  is  natural  to  conjecture  that  the 
Sheeltot  were  brought  to  his  notice  through  his  intercourse 
with  them.  Even  in  the  post- Geonic  time,  the  scholars 
who  make  use  of  Rabbi  Aha's  work  are  those  in  particular 
of  whom  we  know  in  other  ways  that  Palestinian  sources 
were  accessible  to  them3.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  Alfasi 
never  mentions  the  Sheeltot  in  his  compendium  4,  while  his 
younger  contemporary  in  France,  Rashi,  attributes  great 
importance  to  them 5.  Also,  the  Italian  Nathan,  the  author 

1  On  this  peculiar  use  of  srfow,  comp.  above,  p.  75,  n.  2. 

2  Harkavy,  29. 

3  If  the  -vrnm  was  not  composed  in  Palestine,  at  least  it  was  written 
under  Palestinian  influence.      Comp.  Epstein,"  .R.  fi.J.,  XLVI,  201,  and 
Barnstein,  in  Sokolow's   bivrt  fc,  49.      Concerning  the  relation  of  the 
Sheeltot  to  We-Hishir,  see  Parties,  22  a,  where  the  text  stands  in  need  of 
emendation.     R.  Kalonymos  of  Lucca  quotes  the  Sheeltot,  comp.  p"j,  133. 

4  The  benediction  for  yran  bTO2,  in  Alfasi,  Pesahim,  I,  i,  is  not  derived 
from  the  Sheeltot.  but  from  a  Geonic  Responsum,   and  the  passage  in 
j'Vcn  'n,  15,  ed.  Wilna,  is  a  gloss. 

5  Rashi  copies  complete  sentences  from  the  Sheeltot,  and  always  calls 
the  author  fW3  ;    comp.  the  Sheeltot  passages  cited  by  Rashi,  in  Zunz's 
biography  of  Rashi ;  also  the  quotation  from  the  MS.  of  DTID  in  Azulai  : 
:"mr,  s.  v.  NHN. 


THE    IIALAKIC    LITERATURE  89 

of  the  'Aruk,  mentions  the  Sheeltot  several  times.  Now 
it  is  well  known  that  the  Italian  and  the  Franco-German 
Jews  early  maintained  relations  with  Palestinian  scholars, 
and  this  would  explain  their  knowledge  of  the  Sheeltot. 

We  are  now  called  upon  to  deal  with  a  curious  com- 
bination of  circumstances — a  work  composed  in  Palestine 
ignores  the  Yerushalmi,  though  its  author  has  the  oppor- 
tunity of  citing  it  on  every  one  of  his  pages.  The 
explanation  must  be  sought  in  the  nature  of  the  author's 
aim  when  he  set  himself  the  task  of  writing  the  book. 
In  the  introduction  to  his  work,  rrvron  JV3,  reprinted  in 
Neubauer,  Mediaeval  Jewish  Chronicles,  II,  225,  Rabbi 
Menahem  Me'iri  has  the  following  to  say  upon  this  subject : 
"  We  have  a  trustworthy  tradition  that  Rabbi  Aha  had 
a  son  who  refused  to  devote  himself  to  study,  and  for  him 
he  wrote  the  Sheeltot,  that  in  reading  the  Pentateuch 
portion  each  week,  he  might  at  the  same  time  be  forced 
to  familiarise  himself  with  certain  Halakic  pieces." 

In  spite  of  all  the  reverence  due  to  so  great  a  scholar  as 
Me'iri,  it  is  still  difficult  not  to  indulge  in  doubts  of  the 
trustworthiness  of  his  tradition.  We  are  expected  to 
believe  that  the  first  work  of  importance  after  the  close 
of  the  Talmud  owed  its  existence  to  the  laziness  of  an 
unruly  boy.  In  general,  Mei'ri's  account  of  the  Geonim 
is  a  mixture  of  distorted  and  inaccurate  statements1,  and 
this  fact  relieves  us  of  the  necessity  of  dealing  seriously 
with  his  legend,  which,  besides,  is  denied  by  the  plan  and 
style  of  the  Sheeltot. 

First  as  to  the  plan  of  the  book.    In  the  editions  2  we 

1  Rabbi  Nahshoii  is  put  before  Rabbi  Moses,  Rabbi  Hai  ben  David 
officiates  as  the  successor  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  while  Kohen-Zedek  and 
Rab  Amram  are  called  his  successors  !  This  specimen  should  suffice 
to  put  a  proper  valuation  upon  Mei'ri's  Geonic  traditions. 

3  First  edition,  Venice,  1546,  to  which  the  other  editions  go  back,  with 
the  exception  of  ed.  Wilna,  for  which  the  learned  editor  and  commentator. 
Rabbi  Naphtali  Zebi  Berlin,  used  manuscript  material.  The  bibliography 
on  the  She&tot  will  be  found  rather  complete  attached  to  the  present 
writer's  article,  "  Aha  of  Shabha,"  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 


90  THE    GEONIM 

have  of  it,  it  contains  1  7  1  l  Sheeltot,  arranged  according 
to  the  weekly  pericopes  of  the  Pentateuch.  Each  Sheelta 
consists  of  five  elements,  unfortunately  not  always  present 
in  our  printed  edition.  We  shall  take  as  an  illustration 
the  first  Sheelta,  which  probably  has  reached  us  com- 
paratively intact.  It  begins  thus  :  "  Sheelta  :  The  house 
of  Israel  is  in  duty  bound  to  rest  on  the  Sabbath  day,  for 
when  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  his  Name,  created  the 
world,  he  created  it  in  six  days,  he  rested  on  the  seventh 
day,  which  he  blessed  and  sanctified."  This  is  the  intro- 
duction to  the  first  division  of  the  Sheelta,  which  consists 
of  a  number  of  Halakot  from  the  Talmud  relating  to  the 
rest  of  the  Sabbath  day  and  its  sanctification.  Then 
follows  the  second  division,  beginning  with  the  words  : 
sjbn^  DN  TIX  Dia,  "But  this  thou  must  learn,"  which 
introduce  two  Halakic  questions  —  whether  a  fast  should 
be  broken  simultaneously  with  the  entering  of  the  Sabbath, 
as  fasting  on  the  Sabbath  is  forbidden,  and  whether  the 
prohibition  against  running  on  the  Sabbath  includes  run- 
ning to  the  synagogue  or  the  house  of  learning.  The 
arguments  for  and  against  having  been  stated  briefly,  the 
third  part  comes,  introduced  by  the  formula  m"pl  rp»B>  T"O 

?K"1B"  n*3  n>»y  tisbib  W31  HE'D  H'  *?y  KJlTOflDl   NTI'IIK   $£>  3HH 

—  "  Blessed  be  the  Name  of  the  Holy  One  who  hath  given 
us  the  Torah  and  the  laws,  by  the  hand  of  our  teacher 
Moses,  in  order  to  instruct  his  people,  the  house  of  Israel." 
But  instead  of  giving  a  decisive  reply  to  the  questions 
propounded,  the  third  division  consists  of  Halakic  and 
Haggadic  pieces  taken  from  the  Talmud  Babli,  and  from  the 
Midrashim,  all  of  them  such  as  bring  out  the  significance  of 
the  Sabbath.  After  this  rather  lengthy  portion,  in  the  nature 
of  a  digression,  the  fourth  division  presents  the  answer 
to  the  two  questions,  introduced  by  the  words  :  "  And 
regarding  the  questions  which  you  put  to  me,"  Nr6w  i"Jyi> 
KPWT.  The  questions  and  arguments  are  recapitu- 


1  There  are  two  ways  of  counting  the  Sheeltot,  I  follow  that  of  ed.Wilna. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  9! 

lated,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  statements  of  the  Talmud, 
a  conclusion  is  reached.  The  final  division  is  a  Deraahah,  of 
which  the  text  has  preserved  only  the  superscription l,  and 
nothing  besides.  While  the  other  four  parts  are  still  more 
or  less  distinguishable  in  many  of  the  Sheeltot,  the  fifth 
part,  the  Derashah,  has  disappeared  in  absolutely  every 
instance,  and  even  of  the  superscriptions  only  twenty-nine 
have  come  down  to  us 2. 

In  an  article  by  the  present  writer,  on  Rabbi  Aha,  of 
Shabha,  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  I,  pp.  278-80,  the  conjecture 
was  hazarded  that  these  Derashot  were  talks  consisting  of 
Halakic  and  Haggadic  material,  and  that  the  Sheeltot  as 
we  now  have  them  were  abstracts  of  these  lectures,  giving 
the  beginning  of  them  and  the  end.  It  now  appeal's  that 
this  conjecture  requires  considerable  modification,  by  reason 
of  the  new  light  shed  upon  the  subject  by  the  Genizah 
fragment  published  in  G.  $.,  pp.  354-62,  which  constitute 
the  Derashah  attached  to  Sheeita,  XLIII,  and  pp.  365-9, 
the  Derashah  of  the  next  Sheeita,  show  the  character  of 
the  fifth,  the  concluding  division  of  each  of  the  Sheeltot. 
They  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  literal  extracts  from 
the  Babylonian  Talmud,  occasionally  somewhat  shortened, 
the  choice  of  the  parts  of  the  Talmud  being  influenced 


1  The  superscription  is  iarr:c  otpo,  the  fourth  section  of  the  treatise 
Pesahim.  The  beginning  (50  b)  deals  with  travelling  on  Friday,  a  subject 
akin  to  the  one  discussed  by  Rabbi  Aha  in  this  Sheeita.  Reifmann,  1.  c., 
thinks  that  uniffi  oipo  has  reference  to  Yer.  Moi!d  Katan,  III,  82  d,  which 
is  out  of  the  question. 

8  Comp.  the  list  in  Reifmann,  I.e.  In  G.  S.,  p.  366,  a  marginal  note 
by  a  scribe  or  a  reader  gives  the  order  of  the  succession  of  the  parts 
of  a  Sheeita  agreeing  with  that  of  the  editions.  The  probability  is, 
however,  that  originally  the  Derashah  came  in  the  fourth  place,  with 
the  introductory  word  ~pa.  For  reasons  given  further  on  it  was  later 
moved  to  the  end  of  the  Sheeita,  and  then  dropped  entirely.  This  surmise 
is  corroborated  by  G.  S,,  p.  364, 1.  5,  where  -pa  is  followed  by  the  heading 
"Derashah"  together  with  the  theme  of  the  Derashati,  though  the  Derashah 
itself  is  at  the  end,  in  p.  365,  line  9  et  seq.  If  I  am  correctly  informed, 
the  order  here  described  as  original  with  the  Shefttot  is  met  with  in  MSS. 
of  the  Sheeltot. 


92  THE    GEONIM 

by  their  connexion  with  the  subject  treated  in  a  given 
Sheelta.  The  Derashah  on  Sheelta,  XLIII,  pp.  354-62,  is 
composed  of  extracts  from  the  fifth  section  of  the  treatise 
Baba  Mezia,  containing  the  Talmudic  laws  of  usury,  which 
are  discussed  in  the  Sheelta.  A  similar  analysis  holds  good 
of  the  other  Derashah  given l.  This  being  their  character, 
it  is  now  plain  why  the  copyists  omitted  the  Derashot. 
They  conveyed  absolutely  nothing  new,  either  in  form 
or  in  content,  and  in  later  times  there  was  no  reason  for 
rewriting  what  could  be  found  in  the  Talmud  copies. 

The  important  aspect  of  the  Derashot  is  that  through 
them  light  is  thrown  upon  the  purpose  intended  to  be 
served  by  Rabbi  Aha  with  his  book.  The  Sheeltot  have 
the  purpose  of  introducing  the  Babylonian  Talmud  to  the 
Palestinians.  At  the  time  of  Rabbi  Aha,  we  may  be  sure 
that  copies  of  the  Talmud  were  not  too  plentiful,  therefore 
it  was  his  aim  to  extract  verbatim  a  considerable  portion 
of  it2,  especially  the  practical  material,  and  group  it 
about  the  Biblical  laws  as  they  succeed  each  other  in  the 
Scriptures.  To  make  his  collection  available  for  practical, 
pedagogic  ends,  Rabbi  Aha,  considerate  of  Palestinian 
taste,  provided  each  section  of  his  compendium  with  a 
lecture  consisting  of  Halakah  and  Haggadah,  in  which 
a  comprehensive  summing  up  was  made  of  one  or  more 
of  the  points  treated  ramblingly  and  minutely  in  the 
Derashah.  From  of  old,  the  Haggadists  in  Palestine  applied 
the  Yelamdenu  Midrash  for  their  purposes.  Their  method 
was  to  take  a  Halakah  as  their  starting-point,  and  then 
pass  over  to  their  real  subject.  Rabbi  Aha  followed  their 
example  to  the  extent  that  he  did  not  exclude  the  Hag- 
gadah from  his  lectures,  but  in  his  scheme  it  occupied 
the  same  place  that  the  Halakah  had  in  the  scheme  of  the 

1  In  this  DerasJiah  there  are  even  extracts  from  the  Mishnah.  Probably 
they  were  followed  by  the  Talmud  passages  applying  to  them. 

a  If  the  Derashah  reproduced  in  G.  S.,  pp.  354-62,  is  a  proper  criterion 
as  to  the  length  of  the  Derashot,  Rabbi  Aha  extracted  about  one-fifth  of 
the  whole  Talmud  ! 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  93 

Palestinian  Haggadists1.  The  Haggadah  was  his  starting- 
point,  his  real  subject  was  the  Halakah.  To  the  Haggadists 
he  owed  also  the  arrangement  of  the  material  according 
to  the  weekly  lesson  from  the  Pentateuch,  which  had  never 
before  him  been  attempted  by  a  Babylonian,  nor  was  there 
one  to  attempt  it  after  him 2.  In  Babylonia,  the  home 
of  the  Halakah,  a  plan  on  this  basis  would  have  been 
entirely  unnatural,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  first  book  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  purely  narrative,  as  are  also  large  portions 
of  the  second,  fourth,  and  fifth,  and  therefore  altogether 
unsuitable  as  a  basis  for  legal  discussions.  Palestine,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  the  home  of  Haggadistic  interpretation, 
for  which  the  Pentateuch  was  chosen  with  instinctive  dis- 
cernment. Kabbi  Aha  shows  a  fine  sense  for  the  peculiarity 
of  his  new  surroundings,  when  he  accepts,  for  Halakic 
purposes,  the  model  furnished  him  by  the  Haggadists. 
But  docile  as  he  was,  he  could  not  prevent  himself  from 
betraying  his  Babylonian  origin.  Instead  of  using  as 
the  basis  of  his  work  the  triennial  cycle  of  Pentateuch 
pericopes  adopted  in  the  Holy  Land,  he  held  to  the  annual 
cycle  of  his  native  country3. 

In  general,  Rabbi  Aha  remained  more  or  less  consciously 
under  the  dominance  of  Babylonian  customs  during  his 
sojourn  in  Palestine.  His  predilection  appears  notably  in 
the  fact  that  he  did  not  attach  his  discussion  upon  the 
importance  of  the  study  of  the  Torah  to  the  Biblical  law 

1  Graetz,  Geschichte,  Vs,  162,  has  completely  reversed  the  true  relation 
of  Rabbi  Aha  to  the  Haggadic  Midrashim,  when  he  maintains  that  the 
Sheeltot  served  as  a  model  for  the  later  Haggadic  collections,  by  which 
he  means  the  Tanhuma  Midrashim. 

8  Of  all  the  Midrashim,  the  #"~\  ^f\s  may  be  designated  as  Babylonian, 
and  although  it  is  essentially  a  Haggadic  elaboration  of  the  narratives 
in  the  first  book  of  the  Bible,  it  still  is  not  arranged  according  to  the 
Pentateuch  lessons. 

3  Doubtless  the  influence  of  the  Babylonians  must  have  made  itself 
felt  in  this  respect  in  the  time  of  Rabbi  Aha,  and  probably  there  were 
"Babylonian  synagogues"  in  Palestine,  such  as  had  the  one-year  cycle 
of  Pentateuch  lessons.  On  the  influence  of  the  Babylonian  rituals  in 
Palestine  see  G.  S.,  p.  58. 


94  THE    GEONIM 

in  Deut.  vi.  7,  in  the  section  pnnxi.  Instead,  he  displayed 
great  ingenuity  in  working  it  into  the  pericope  called  "p  "p. 
The  reason  is  very  simple.  The  "  reception  Sabbath  "  of  the 
Exilarch  in  Babylonia  coincided  with  Sabbath  *]b  'p.  The 
Geonim,  or  rather  the  Geonim  of  Sura,  were  in  the  habit 
of  utilising  this  occasion,  which  attracted  people  from 
all  parts,  for  a  lecture,  and  naturally  enough  the  study 
of  the  Torah  was  a  favourite  theme1.  And  it  was  this 
custom  of  his  native  land  Rabbi  Aha  had  in  mind  when 
he  used  the  Sheelta  on  "ft  *]*?  for  a  disquisition  on  lic^n 
mm. 

How  completely  the  Geonic  and  post-Geonic  develop- 
ment of  Halakic  literature  was  moulded  by  Babylonia, 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  there  is  but  a  single  work 
patterned  after  the  Sheeltot,  the  book  We-Hizhir,  the  be- 
ginnings of  which  are  probably  to  be  placed  in  the  tenth 
century.  All  that  we  know  about  the  author  is  that  he 
stood  under  strong  Palestinian  influences2.  Not  only  is 
the  We-Hizhir  constructed  on  the  same  formal  plan  as  the 
Sheeltot,  but  it  embodied  copious  excerpts  from  Rabbi 
Aria's  work,  a  circumstance  which  makes  it  most  valuable 
for  us,  inasmuch  as  its  text  of  the  Sheeltot  frequently 
differs  from  ours  3.  The  text  upon  which  our  editions  are 
based  has  suffered  additions  and  abbreviations  as  well.  In 
G.  S.,  p.  353  et  seq.,  below,  Genizah  fragments  of  pieces  of 
the  Sheeltot  missing  in  the  printed  text  have  been  repro- 


1  Comp.  above,  p.  5,  n.  i. 

2  Comp.  above,  p.  88,  n.  3. 

3  On  this  com  p.  Rapoport,  jn:  '~\  nnrin,  note  4,  and  Addition  i,  also 
Reifmann,  1.  c.     Our  SJieeltot  are   defective   in   arrangement,  too.     For 
instance,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sheelta  CXXIII  on  c':no  7012 
belongs  to  the  pericope  NIIT:  and  not  to  frn^yrra ,  as  the  editions  have  it. 
Mahzor  Vitry,  394,  and  Rashi's  Siddw  (Buber's  Introduction  to  misn  'r, 
84)  quote  this  Sheelta  properly  as  belonging  to  NIT:  .     Hurwitz,  the  editor 
of  the  Mahzor,  and  Buber  both  went  astray,  therefore,  when  they  were  of 
opinion  that  the  Sheeltot  passage  in  question  was  missing  in  our  editions. 
On  Sheeltot  quotations  in  the  'Aruk,  comp.  Buber's  letter  addressed  tn 
Kohut,  in  the  latter's  introduction  to  the  -piy. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  95 

duced  from  the  Taylor-Schechter  collection  at  Cambridge1. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Halakot  of  Rabbi  Aha,  which  are 
mentioned  by  Maimonides  in  his  introduction  to  the 
Mishnah,  are  not  a  lost  book,  but  the  Sheeltot  under 
another  name.  The  Halakot  Pesukot  of  Rabbi  Aha,  sup- 
posed to  be  mentioned  by  Rabbi  Moses  of  Coucy  in  his 
3"iDD,  Commandement  50,  is  a  printer's  error  as  old  as  the 
second  edition  of  1488.  The  first  edition,  before  1480, 
reads  properly  'XTp  instead  of 


RABBI  JEHUDAI  THE  EARLIEST  HALAKIC  WRITER  IN 
GEONIC  TIMES. 

"  Since  many  years  until  this  day  there  was  none  like 
unto  Rab  Jehudai,  for  he  was  great  in  knowledge  —  of 
the  Bible,  the  Mishnah,  the  Midrash,  the  Tosafot,  the 
Haggadot  —  and  in  the  practical  law.  It  was  his  habit 
never  to  say  anything  he  had  not  heard  from  his  teacher. 
He  was  great  in  holiness  and  purity,  in  piety  and  humility, 
he  was  zealous  in  the  fulfilment  of  all  commands.  He 
sacrificed  himself  for  the  sake  of  God  3,  and  he  drew  men 
near  to  the  Torah  and  to  obedience  to  the  law,  and  none 
after  him  was  like  unto  him  .....  Rabbi  Jehudai  once 
said,  Ye  have  never  submitted  a  matter  to  me,  and  I 

1  There  is  no  telling  whether  all  these  Sheeltot  fragments  belong  to  the 
original  work  of  Rabbi  Aha,  or  are  later  productions  modelled  after  his 
work.     The  She&ta  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  pp.  373-81,  shows  so  many 
verbal  agreements  with  the  j"n  that  it  cannot  but  have  made  use  of  the 
latter. 

2  The  first  to  call  attention  to  this  alleged  Halakot  of  Rabbi  Aha  was 
S.    Bloch,   in  his   Hebrew   translation   of  Zunz's   biography  of  Rashi. 
Reifmann,  1.  c.,  mentions  it  likewise,  without  referring  to  Bloch.    Comp. 
also  below,  p.  100,  n.  i. 

*  The  expression  Dvaicb  r^sr  ns  YDNO  is  usually  applied  to  martyrs  who 
sacrifice  life  in  the  service  of  God,  but  the  preceding  word  rrm  shows 
plainly  that  there  was  no  idea  of  conveying  the  notion  of  Rabbi  Jehudai's 
having  died  a  martyr's  death.  Rapoport's  assumption,  ion  DID  ,  VI,  243, 
that  Rabbi  Jehudai  died  a  martyr,  is  refuted  by  this  fragment  ;  comp. 
also  Weiss,  41,  n.  17. 


96  THE    GEONIM 

decided  it,  but  that  I  had  a  proof  from  the  Talmud  for 
my  decision,  and  from  the  practice  of  my  teacher,  who 
would  have  it  from  his  teacher.  I  never  rendered  a  decision 
wherefor  I  had  only  a  proof  from  the  Talmud,  and  not 
from  the  practice  of  my  teacher,  or  wherefor  I  had  a  proof 
only  from  the  practice  of  my  teacher,  and  not  from  the 
Talmud." 

This  characterisation  of  Rabbi  Jehudai,  quoted  in  G.  S., 
pp.  52-3,  by  a  younger  contemporary  of  the  great  Gaon, 
shows  how  high  an  opinion  his  own  time  had  of  his  ability 
and  achievements.  The  centuries  following  his  death  felt 
the  same  appreciation  of  his  mental  powers.  He  was 
called  the  "light  of  the  world,"  and  a  number  of  other 
epithets  betokening  honour  and  reverence x.  An  anony- 
mous author,  probably  a  Gaon  of  Punibedita,  flourishing 
about  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  could  find 
no  more  effectual  way  of  investing  what  he  wrote  with 
authority  than  by  the  plea  that  "  all  I  have  written  unto 
you  I  did  not  write  out  of  my  own  learning  and  wisdom, 
but  it  rests  upon  what  I  have  derived,  in  theory  and  in 

practice,  from  my  teacher  Rabbah, the  disciple  of 

Rabbi  Jehudai  Gaon,  may  the  memory  of  our  teacher 
be  unto  a  blessing  and  unto  life  in  the  future  world2." 

1  Comp.,  for  instance,  S"ID,  45  a.     Rabbi  Sherira,  Yi,  43,  observes  that 
Eabbi  Jehudai  granted  no  absolution  for  oaths,  and  as  a  consequence 
the  scholars  of  the  generations  succeeding  him  opposed  the  exercise  of 
myntEJ  mnn,  since  they  would  not  arrogate  to  themselves  greater  authority 
than  Rabbi  Jehudai  assumed !     On  his  aversion  to  absolving  from  oaths 
and   vows    see    Nahmanides,   Nedarim,   end.      Comp.   also    the    Geonic 
Responsum  in  c'Ittur,  II,  2  a,  where  the  authority  of  Rabbi  Jehudai  is 
given  high  praise.     The  epithet   "light  of  the  world"  was  probably 
applied  to  him  in  contrast  to  his  blindness,  while  that  of  Rabbenu 
Gershom,  "  light  of  the  Diaspora,"  is  derived  from  Huttin,  59  b. 

2  Ha-Goren,   IV,    71.      Harkavy's    attempt    to    fasten   this  fragment, 
published  by  him,  upon  Rabbi  Hilai,  the  father  of  Rabbi  Natronai,  is 
not  successful.     The  strict  interdict  against  fasting  on  roisj  res?  con- 
tained in  this  fragment  contradicts  the  view  of  Rabbi  Natronai  (comp. 
G.S.,  p.  261,  and  the  sources  cited  there  in  connexion  with  Responsum 
10),  and  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  latter  would  have  ignored  his 
father's  position  completely.     Rather  is  it  probable  that  the  author  of 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  97 

Rabbi  Jehudai's  learning  alone  could  not  have  secured 
these  extraordinary  honours  for  him.  The  impartial  his- 
torian is  forced  to  confess  that  in  respect  to  scholarship 
he  was  outstripped  by  more  than  one  of  his  successors. 
Not  to  mention  Rabbi  Saadia,  whose  genius  was  so  many- 
sided  that  he  became  the  pioneer  on  a  number  of  fields 
of  Jewish  science,  Rabbi  Jehudai's  achievements  even  upon 
the  limited  field  of  the  Talmud  cannot  be  compared  with 
those  of  Sar  Shalom  and  Natronai,  to  specify  only  a  couple 
of  the  older  Geonim.  The  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Jehudai, 
if  they  go  beyond  a  curt  affirmative  or  negative,  offer 
at  best  a  brief  reference  to  a  Talmud  passage,  without 
further  comment.  Nothing  of  the  depth  of  a  Sar  Shalom  or 
the  great  erudition  of  a  Rabbi  Natronai.  Indeed,  the  pane- 
gyrist quoted  above  recounts  it  as  one  of  his  distinctions 
that  Rabbi  Jehudai  never  said  anything  for  which  he 
could  not  find  endorsement  in  the  Talmud  or  in  religious 
practice. 

Accordingly,  Rabbi  Jehudai's  importance  must  be  sought 
in  some  concrete  deed  which  made  him  a  commanding 
figure  in  the  eyes  of  his  contemporaries  and  his  successors. 
And  for  a  deed  of  this  calibre  we  need  not  search  far  or 
long.  The  words  of  Rabbi  Hai  quoted  above1,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  "  secret  rolls,"  wherein  the  "  authorities 
of  remotest  times,"  "  who  lived  before  Rabbi  Jehudai" 
were  wont  to  record  traditions  "  for  their  own  use,"  suggest 
the  solution.  Rabbi  Jehudai  is  the  earliest  author,  at  least 
the  earliest  Halakic  author,  of  the  Geonic  time.  He  was 


the  fragment  was  a  Pumbeditan,  and  his  teacher,  ruKi,  of  whom 
Harkavy  says  that  no  mention  is  made  of  him  otherwise,  was  the 
Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  Rab  Abba  ben  Rabbi  Dudai,  the  nephew  of  Rabbi 
Jehudai.  It  is  work  of  supererogation  to  prove  the  identity  of  the 
names  nn  ,  nam  ,  and  NIN  '-\  ;  however,  even  the  versions  of  Rabbi 
Sherira's  Letter,  39,  have  rm  and  NIN  at  for  the  same  name.  It  only 
remains  to  add  that  the  prohibition  against  fasting  on  nrra  rue  goes 
back  to  Rabbi  Jehudai  ;  comp.  Miiller,  Handschriftiiche  Jehudai  Gaon 
zugewiesene  Lehrsatze,  1  1  and  1  8. 
1  Comp.  above,  p.  74. 
I  H 


98  THE    GEONIM 

the  first  to  put  Halakic  matter  down  in  writing  for  general 
use,  and  it  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  he  may  and 
should  be  regarded  as  a  pioneer. 

The  objection  will  be  raised  that  in  the  previous  section 
Rabba  Aha,  of  Shabha,  a  contemporary  of  Rabbi  Jehudai, 
was  presented  as  an  author  of  a  Halakic  work.  It  is 
altogether  probable  that  this  contemporary  of  Rabbi 
Jehudai  was  stimulated  to  take  up  his  pen  when  the  latter, 
with  all  the  authority  of  a  Gaon,  abrogated  the  prohibition 
against  the  writing  down  of  the  Halakah.  The  assump- 
tion, in  itself  highly  probable,  that  so  important  a  change 
emanated  from  a  Gaon  invested  with  dignity  and  power 
rather  than  a  private  individual,  finds  corroboration  in 
the  chronological  data  marshalled  in  the  first  part  of  this 
Introduction.  It  was  shown  above,  p.  48,  that  the  Gaon 
of  Pumbedita,  Rabbi  Samuel,  was  still  alive  when  Rabbi 
Jehudai  entered  upon  the  Gaonate  of  Sura.  Furthermore, 
we  know  that  Rabbi  Aha  wrote  his  Sheeltot  after  his 
removal  to  Palestine,  and  this  event  did  not  take  place 
until  after  the  death  of  Rabbi  Samuel.  But  at  bottom 
the  Sheeltot  do  not  affect  the  present  point.  In  Palestine 
the  prohibition  against  the  writing  down  of  Halakah  had 
ceased  to  be  enforced  with  rigour  back  in  the  Talmudic 
time1.  So  that  even  if  the  Sheeltot  had  not  remained 
unknown  in  Babylonia,  being  a  Palestinian  product,  they 
still  would  have  had  no  influence  upon  the  question  of 
Halakic  authorship  in  Babylonia. 

1  Comp.  Temurah,  14  a  ;  the  beginnings  of  the  practice  of  writing  down 
the  Halakah  are  probably  to  be  sought  in  the  srwoo  WTUN,  the  written 
•communications  sent  from  Palestine  to  Babylonia.  The  sharp  condemna- 
tion by  Rabbi  Johanan  of  the  practice  of  writing  down  the  Halakah, 
Temurah,  1.  c. ,  is  not  found  in  the  Yerushcdmi,  while  there  is,  in  Ter. 
Berakot,  V,  9  a,  an  endorsement  of  Haggadic  writings  by  Rabbi  Johanan. 
•Comp.  Brull,  Jahrbucher,  II,  5. 


THE  HALAKIC  LITERATURE  99 

CONFLICTING  TRADITIONS  ABOUT  THE  AUTHOR  OP  THE 
HALAKOT  GEDOLOT. 

Rabbi  Jehudai's  priority  as  an  Halakic  author  is  contested 
by  another,  by  Rabbi  Simon  {O^p1.  The  most  important 
Halakic  compendium  of  the  Geonic  period,  the  Halakot 
Gedolot,  is  ascribed  by  some  old  authors  to  Rabbi  Jehudai, 
but  others  name  Rabbi  Simon  as  the  author.  Rabbi 
Abraham  Ibn  Daud  maintains  plainly  that  Rabbi  Jehudai's 
Halakot  Kezubot  are  an  abstract  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot 
of  Rabbi  Simon.  Halevy  emends  (pp.  200-13)  the  text 
of  the  RaBeD  so  that  he  finds  the  exact  reverse  to  be 
the  case,  that  it  was  Rabbi  Simon  who  based  his  work 
upon  Rabbi  Jehudai's.  It  is  Halevy's  theory  that  Rabbi 
Jehudai  wrote  a  Halakic  compendium  long  before  he 
became  Gaon,  and  it  served  as  the  source  from  which 
his  younger  and  less  important  contemporaries,  Rabbi 
Aha,  the  author  of  the  Sheeltot,  and  Rabbi  Simon,  the 
author  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot,  drew  their  material.  The 
assumption  is  highly  improbable — to  repeat  what  was 
said  above — that  the  first  step  toward  a  fixation  of  the 
Halakah  in  writing  in  Babylonia  proceeded  from  a  private 
individual,  but  if  it  were  an  acceptable  assumption,  the 
priority  of  Rabbi  Simon  would  be  established,  for  the 
RaBeD  puts  the  time  of  his  activity  a  generation  earlier 
than  Rabbi  Jehudai,  and  no  emendation  can  dispose  of 
that  statement. 

But  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  incorrectness 
of  the  RaBeD's  statement  about  Rabbi  Simon.  It  clearly 
rests  upon  a  misunderstanding,  and  it  is  vain  to  try  to 
harmonise  it  with  other  reports  of  a  reliable  nature2. 
Rabbi  Hai,  as  appears  from  his  words  quoted  above3, 

1  The  most  important    literature    dealing  with   a'rt  is  recorded   by 
Epstein  in  his  a*n  IDD  **?  T2tro. 

2  How  RaBeD  reached  this  view  of  his,  comp.  above,  pp.  76-7,  and 
Epstein,  1.  c.,  51. 

3  Comp.  above,  p.  74. 

H  2 


100  THE    GEONIM 

assuredly  considers  Rabbi  Jehudai  the  earliest  author  of 
the  Geonic  period,  and  bearing  this  Responsum  of  Rabbi 
Hai  in  mind,  another  passage  of  his,  in  p"a,  87,  , . , ,  py»B>  'i 
»KllfT  an  "i»f  pn'oyox  Dp  vh,  admits  of  no  meaning  except 
this :  Rabbi  Simon  N"Vp,  the  compiler  of  the  Halakot 
Gedolot,  misunderstood  the  opinion  of  Rabbi  Jehudai. 

Rabbi  Hai's  last  quoted  statement  propounds  another 
problem,  the  solution  of  which  is  extremely  difficult.  In 
this  Responsum  and  elsewhere,  Rabbi  Hai  clearly  says  that 
the  author  of  3"n  was  Rabbi  Simon  NT11?,  and  not  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  wherein  he  argues  with  the  scholars  of  Spain  and 
the  Provence,  and  is  in  opposition  to  those  of  France  and 
Germany.  The  latter 1  name  Rabbi  Jehudai  as  the  author 
of  3'n.  In  his  enlightening  essay  upon  the  subject, 
Epstein  does  not  hesitate  to  characterise  the  tradition 
of  Franco-German  authorities  regarding  the  author  of  3"n 
as  an  outright  error.  However,  he  makes  no  attempt  to 
elicit  the  cause  of  the  error.  It  could  not  have  been  caused 
by  confounding  J"n  with  the  nipioa  ni3/n  ascribed  to  Rabbi 


1  The  older  Italian  scholars,  as,  for  instance,  Rabbi  Isaiah  di  Trani 
the  Elder,  agree  with  the  Franco-German  scholars,  while  the  younger 
ones  seem  to  have  wavered.  Kabbi  Zedekiah  ben  Abraham,  the  author 
of  the  bn'ic,  in  most  passages  calls  Rabbi  Jehudai  the  author  of  the  :*n, 
yet  there  are  places  in  which  Rabbi  Simon  NT'p  appears  as  such.  Though 
Rabbi  Abraham  ben  Nathan,  the  author  of  the  Manhig,  studied  in  Northern 
France,  he  wrote  his  work  in  Spain,  hence  he  usually  speaks  of  Rabbi 
Simon  as  the  author  of  the  3*n,  but,  again,  in  some  passages,  he  was 
dominated  by  the  French  tradition.  Among  the  Spanish- Proven9al 
authors,  too,  there  is  a  tendency  to  variation.  In  y't?,  14  a,  Rabbi  David 
•nn  p  (Alfasi  quotes  him  in  n*3,  301)  speaks  of  Rabbi  Jehudai  as  the 
author  of  j"n,  and  Rabbi  Isaac,  the  author  of  the  'Ittur,  though  he  almost 
always  considers  Rabbi  Simon  as  the  author,  says  in  one  passage  (II, 
48  d)  .  .  .  .  nobn  bri  »ro»  an  D'DI,  which  should  most  probably  be  read 
'3:n  'ya  mv  n,  since  the  passage  quoted  occurs  in  both  versions  of  the 
a*n,  at  the  beginning  of  HDD,  but  it  does  not  occur  in  the  SheSltot.  The 
same  slip  of  the  pen,  making  sn«  of  mv,  was  shown  above,  p.  95,  to 
have  occurred  in  :*QD  .  There  is  the  possibility,  however,  that  the  ' Ittur 
had  this  passage  in  SheSlta  LXXIII  and  LXXIX.  The  description  of 
Rabbi  Aha  as  the  'frr  'ya  was  demonstrated  above,  p.  95,  to  occur  in 
Maimonides. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  IOI 

Jehudai.  They  knew  the  latter  work  as  well  as  the  former, 
and  the  widely  varying  character  of  the  two  books  would 
suggest  separate  authors  rather  than  the  same.  Halevy, 
applying  the  Talmudic  maxim,  D"n  DTi^K  nan  "km  "hx,  to 
historical  data,  can  see  no  contradiction  between  the  two 
opinions.  He  holds  that  the  Franco-German  authors  had 
made  Rabbi  Jehudai  the  author  of  J"n,  because  they  knew 
that  for  this  work  of  his  Rabbi  Simon  fcO"p  had  made 
constant  use  of  the  niplDS  nia^n  of  Rabbi  Jehudai.  They 
therefore  did  not  hesitate  to  describe  Rabbi  Jehudai  as 
the  author  in  the  real  sense.  Apart  from  the  improbability 
of  this  conjecture,  which  imputes  to  scholars  of  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  centuries  the  practice  of  changing  the  name 
of  the  author  attached  to  a  given  book,  on  the  ground  of 
literary  criticism,  this  alleged  historical  criticism  was  far 
from  doing  honour  to  the  penetration  of  the  critics.  The 
Halakot  Pesukot,  it  is  true,  are  freely  made  use  of  in 
the  present  form  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot,  but  these  two 
Halakot  collections  are  so  radically  different  in  their  under- 
lying plans,  that  there  would  be  as  much  justification  for 
ascribing  the  same  author  to  them  as  for  ascribing  the 
Halakot  Gedolot  to  Rabbi  Aha,  of  Shabha,  whose  Sheeltot, 
too,  have  been  drawn  upon  considerably  therefor. 

Now,  if  it  were  simply  a  matter  of  choosing  between 
Rabbi  Hai's  statement  and  the  statement  of  European 
scholars,  we  should  not  have  to  hesitate  long.  The  Baby- 
lonian Rabbi  Hai,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  was  assuredly 
better  informed  about  the  author  of  important  Halakot 
collections  made  in  the  Geonic  time  than  the  authorities 
of  Germany  and  France  living  at  a  distance  from  the  time 
and  the  scene  of  the  activity  of  the  Babylonian  Halakists. 
However,  we  are  in  possession  of  a  Geonic  tradition  very 
much  older  than  Rabbi  Hai's,  and  it  tells  us,  in  unmis- 
takable words,  that  Rabbi  Jehudai  is  the  author  of  the 
Halakot  Gedolot.  In  a  Responsum  in  G.  S.,  pp.  85-6, 
a  decision  occurring  in  the  Halakot  Gedolot  is  repudiated 
on  the  ground  that  it  lacks  authenticity,  and  the  view  is 


102  THE    GEONIM 

expressed  that  it  did  not  emanate  from  the  author  of 
the  3"n,  but  rather  from  Rabbi  Jacob,  the  Gaon  of  Sura. 
If  it  is  taken  into  consideration  that  even  the  last  of 
the  Geonim,  Rabbi  Hai  and  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni, 
express  their  opinion  on  Rabbi  Simon  N'V'P  plainly,  indi- 
cating that  they  do  not  regard  him  as  an  authority1, 
the  Responsum  referred  to  would  become  altogether  un- 
intelligible on  the  assumption  that  its  writer  looked  upon 
Rabbi  Simon  as  the  author  of  3"n.  Instead  of  undermining 
the  authority  of  the  decision  disputed  by  him,  he  would 
confirm  it  by  attributing  it  to  so  eminent  a  person 
as  Rabbi  Jacob,  Gaon  of  Sura.  The  Responsum  conveys 
sense  only  if  we  assume  that  its  writer  considered  Rabbi 
Jehudai  Gaon  as  the  author  of  the  J"n.  Now  a  decision 
emanating  from  him  had  unassailable  authority  in  the 
eyes  of  the  Geonim,  and  therefore  the  writer  of  the  Re- 
sponsum adds  that  the  moot  passage  had  originated,  not 
with  Rabbi  Jehudai,  but  with  a  disciple 2  of  his,  Rabbi 
Jacob,  and  the  view  of  this  Gaon  he  did  not  accept  as 
of  unquestioned  authority. 

The  writer  of  the  Responsum  under  examination  is  not 

1  Comp.,  for  example,  Rabbi  Hai's  rather  incisive  observation  on  Rabbi 
Simon  in  p"j,  87,  and  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni's  patronising  words  in 
Harkavy,  146.    It  may  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  Epstein,  1.  c..  overlooked 
this  quotation  from  the  3*n  by  Rabbi  Samuel. 

2  Rabbi  Jacob  referred  to  oral  instructions  given  by  Rabbi  Jehudai 
in   his  presence   (I"IN,  I,    H4b;   DTiE,  2&&;  and   below,  p.  31),  as  is 
indicated  particularly  by  the  words  'NTirv  'i  TO  uioi  pi.     The  end  of 
the  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Jacob  in  I"IN  reads  :  31  'CO  'n  mo«  NIWD  NIT< 
'smrr  (in  me  the  text  is  corrupt),  whence  the  inference  seems  to  be 
that  the  teacher  of  Rabbi  Jacob  was  not  Rabbi  Jehudai  himself,  but  one 
of  the  pupils  of  the  latter,  perhaps  Rabbi  Hanina.     As  the  death  of 
Rabbi  Jacob  occurred  forty  years  after  Rabbi  Jehudai's,  it  is  possible 
for   him    to    have   heard   Rabbi   Jehudai  dispense  instruction,   without 
having  been  a  pupil  of  his  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.     Comp.  also 
;*rr,  125,  which  gives  the  impression  that  Rabbi  Jacob  was  a  disciple 
of  Rabbi  Hanina.     In  the  MS.  of  the  n">}Ki,  mentioned  above,  p.  47,  the 
parallel  passage  reads :   i:"npi  •mrb  pi  ...  rmo  JIN:  ['»:»:n  =  ]  'N!r:n  10  nm 
;i«J  'NTirr  n  'BO.     Accordingly,  it  is  Rabbi  Haninai,  and  not  Rabbi  Jacob, 
who  referred  to  personal  instructions  received  from  Rabbi  Jehudai. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  103 

mentioned,  but  it  seems  highly  probable  that  it  was  issued 
by  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Hilai,  who  elsewhere,  too,  accuses 
Rabbi  Jacob  of  seeking  to  give  a  view  of  his  own  undue 
weight  through  the  protection  of  Rabbi  Jehudai's  name  1. 
Also,  the  expression  N^in  pan  is  frequently  used  by  Rabbi 
Natronai.  At  all  events,  the  rather  cavalier  way  in  which 
a  view  of  Rabbi  Jacob's  is  rejected,  indicates  that  the  author 
of  the  Responsum  must  be  a  Gaon  not  too  far  removed 
from  Rabbi  Jacob  in  time  2. 

JEHUDAI  GAON  AUTHOR  OF  THE  ORIGINAL 

HALAKOT  GEDOLOT. 

Another  circumstance  adds  to  the  difficulty  of  determining 
who  the  author  of  the  Halakot  Gedolot  is.  We  have  two 
widely  varying  versions  of  the  book,  and  it  is  a  serious 
task  to  establish  which  of  the  two,  if  either,  is  the  original 
form.  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  in  detail  the  rela- 
tion existing  between  these  two  versions ;  one  point, 
however,  requires  immediate  consideration.  One  version, 
which  will  be  designated  as  J" n  I,  mentions  no  authorities 
younger  than  Rabbi  Jehudai  Gaon 3,  while  a"n  II  refers  to 

1  Comp.  G.  S.,  p.  31. 

'  Comp.  R.  Natronai's  Responsum  in  G.  <S.,  p.  319,  where  ma  n  'c  is 
perhaps  =  :"n. 

*  In  the  author's  list  for  3*n,  by  Epstein,  1.  c.,  Rabbi  Hanina  appears 
the  pupil  of  Rabbi  Jehudai,  from  3*n  I,  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
the  w:':n  '~\  mentioned  there  is  the  same  as  the  pupil  of  Rabbi  Jehudai, 
as  there  was  an  earlier  Gaon  of  this  name.  Halevy's  objection  to  the 
identification,  that  the  younger  Rabbi  Hanina  is  not  designated  as  Kohen, 
is  of  course  untenable.  In  j"n,  125,  likewise,  won  '~\  is  not  described 
as  Kohen,  although  it  is  certain  that  Rabbi  Jehudai's  pupil  is  there 
referred  to,  as  his  reply  to  a  question  put  by  Rabbi  Jacob  is  given.  It 
should  be  added  that  the  passage  in  3*n,  793,  is  a  later  interpolation, 
as  appears  from  i*w,  I,  204.  It  was  transferred  thither  from  a'n  II,  325, 
where  it  was  in  so  early  a  copy  as  that  used  by  Samuel  ben  Hofni 
(Harkavy,  146).  The  form  of  the  other  passage,  3*n,  138  d,  betrays  it 
to  be  a  gloss,  as  in  two  other  passages  in  j*n  I,  in  which  explanations 
are  described  as  CTVC,  this  word  properly  stands  at  the  beginning  of 
the  clause  to  be  explained,  while  here  it  is  put  at  the  end.  It  probably 
is  the  observation  of  a  reader  who  had  heard  the  discussion  of  rmrra  m:no 
by  Rabbi  Hanina,  which  is  not  meant  to  imply  that  the  view  presented 


104  THE    GEONIM 

Geonim l  up  to  890.  The  final  redaction  of  the  latter  version 
should  thus  be  assigned  to  about  the  year  900.  As  the 
Franco- German  scholars  differ  from  the  Hispano-Provensal 
in  their  views  of  the  authorship  of  J"n,  so  also  they  differ 
in  their  use  of  the  versions  2.  The  former  are  acquainted 
with  the  first  version  only,  the  latter  with  the  second  version 
only,  and  here  we  must  seek  the  solution  of  the  question 
occupying  us. 

The  real  author  of  J^n   is   Rabbi  Jehudai.      His  work 
reached  the  Franco-German  scholars  at  an  early  period, 

originated  with  him.  An  interesting  parallel  is  offered  by  Ycdkut,  I,  736, 
where  it  is  said,  at  the  end  of  a  Midrash  extract :  ^mra  cm«  ~\rJr\ 
pwi  nine'  cui  «:nD  •>«:<:n  «mi  [N:no]  NSTO — "  And  this  [section]  was 
expounded  by  the  head  of  the  Academy  and  Gaon  Rabbi  Hanina  in 
the  Academy."  It  would  seem  that  Rabbi  Hanina  was  disposed  to  give 
his  students  compilations  of  Haggadic  material  and  Halakic  as  well. 
It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  nobi  may  refer  to  Rabbi  Samuel, 
and  not  to  Rabbi  Haninai.  Who  D"£D  '~\  is,  mentioned  in  both  versions 
of  the  j"n,  cannot  be  made  out.  The  father  of  the  Pumbeditan  Gaon 
Rabbi  Zemah  is  called  »CB  in  a  MS.  of  the  Letter,  instead  of  v:E3,  but 
this  must  be  merely  a  slip  of  the  pen,  as  Rabbi  Nathan  also  has  'x:E3. 

1  Probably  the  reading  should  be  'in'p  instead  of  •'ovp  in  z"n  II,  548. 
The  person  meant  is  the  Gaon  of  Sura  (about  832),  not  the  Gaon  of 
Pumbedita  (ab.  906),  the  father  of  Mebasser,  as  no  Pumbeditan  Geonim 
are  mentioned  in  a"n  with  the  exception  of  Rabbi  Paltoi  and  his  son 
Zemah.     Responsa  by  a  Rabbi  Kimoi  are  to  be  found  in  the  anonymous 
Halakic  compendium  published  in  J.  Q.  R.,  IX,  669-81,  and  he  is  pro- 
bably the  same  as  our  Rabbi  '107.    It  is  proper,  however,  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  Rabbi  Nathan  calls  the  father  of  Rabbi  Saadia's  predecessor 
as  Gaon  of  Sura  'ovp,  and  not  nc'p.     About  jun  p  ipy  fm\  in  ;"n  II,  230, 
we  know  absolutely  nothing.     Is  it  possible  that  he  may  be  Rabbi  Jacob 
of  Nehar  Pakod,  who  was  Gaon  of  Sura  about  715  ?     His  decision  against 
the  use  of  phylacteries  on  n'mn  is  in  agreement  with  Rabbi  Shashna 
(n'tc,  266),  who  officiated  as  Gaon  of  Sura  about  one  generation  earlier. 
At  all  events,  the  name  yyi,  in  its  Aramaic  form  wan,  occurs  at  this 
time ;  comp.  above,  p.  17,  n.  i.     I  am  very  suspicious  about  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  end  of  the  Responsum  in  n*TD,  1.  c.     It  is  missing  in  n"c,  155, 
and  in  I'IDD,  I,  47,  it  forms  part  of  a  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Moses.    We  can 
hardly  be  said  to  know  Rabbi  Shashna's  view  on  nn"im  pVBn. 

2  This  rule,  of  course,  has  its  exceptions.     Rabbi  Isaac  of  Vienna  also 
used  the  rroED'N  to  a'm.     On  the  other  hand,  Albargeloni  seems  to  have 
known  i"n  I,  as  was  observed  by  Halberstam  in  his  introduction  to  the 
m's'  'D  cno,  12.     Comp.  above,  p.  100,  n.  i. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  105 

and  they  assigned  it  to  Rabbi  Jehudai  as  its  author,  on 
the  strength  of  a  well-founded  tradition.  This  work  was 
recast  about  900.  by  Rabbi  Simon,  who  made  many  additions 
thereto,  by  reason  of  which  additions  the  work  acquired 
such  popularity  that  it  superseded  the  original  of  the  great 
Rabbi  Jehudai.  Now,  when  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi 
Hai  desire  to  speak  of  Rabbi  Jehudai 's  work,  they  designate 
it  specifically  as  Wirv  'n  iro^n  in  contrast  to  the  i"n  par 
excellence,  which  circulated  a  century  after  Rabbi  Simon 
in  the  form  given  to  it  by  him.  This  "improved"  version 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Hispano-Proven^al  scholars,  who 
properly  referred  to  the  J"n  as  the  work  of  Rabbi  Simon, 
inasmuch  as  they  did  not  know  its  older  form.  Again,  the 
anonymous  writer  of  the  Responsum  in  G.  S.,  pp.  85,  86, 
who  lived  before  900,  knew  none  but  the  first  version, 
and  there  was  no  need  for  him  to  name  the  author,  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  explicitly.  In  his  time  no  Halakot  Gedolot 
existed  except  those  of  Rabbi  Jehudai.  The  words  of 
Rabbi  Hai  1,  wvr  101  rnhlJ  nttbm,  are  therefore  not  to  be 
emended  to  read  'jnirr  no  ttchmi  ni^na  ni^m,  as  suggested 
by  Epstein,  but  "id  is  to  be  changed  to  ~io"i.  Rabbi  Hai 
refers  to  the  various  readings  in  the  a"n  of  Rabbi  Jehudai, 
without  concerning  himself  about  those  of  Rabbi  Simon, 
to  which  he  attributed  no  particular  importance. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  Rabbi  Hai  cites 2  a  view  from 
the  Halakot  of  Rabbi  Jehudai  which  is  in  contradiction 
to  a*n  I.  But  this  can  hardly  be  brought  up  as  an 
objection  to  the  above  explanation,  if  we  consider  that 
as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Geonim  the  text  of  a*n  had 
been  badly  tampered  with3.  We  are  probably  dealing 
with  a  correction  of  3"n  I  in  accordance  with  3"n  II,  a 
process  not  by  any  manner  of  means  unique*.  Though 

1  Quoted  in  DTI  QTin,  233,  119.  *  o'c,  II,  66. 

8  Comp.  Epstein,  1.  c. 

4  Of  the  many  proofs  that  might  be  brought  forward,  a  couple  follow  : 
a*OD,  Prohibition  138,  cited  from  a*n  II,  which  we  have  in  a*n  I,  134  d, 
while  Commandment  63  he  cites  from  ;*n  I,  with  us  contained  in  :*n 


106  THE    GEONIM 

Rabbi  Simon  fell  far  short  of  enjoying  the  respect  paid 
his  predecessor,  Rabbi  Jehudai,  his  work  was  used  to 
a  much  larger  extent  than  the  shorter  compendium  of 
Rabbi  Jehudai,  who  even  had  to  submit  to  improvements 
after  Rabbi  Simon. 

A  much  more  serious  objection  might  be  advanced, 
based  upon  the  presence  of  Sheeltot  quotations  in  the  J"n. 
It  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable  that  Rabbi  Jehudai 
would  regard  the  work  of  his  contemporary  Rabbi  Aha, 
whose  activity,  besides,  displayed  itself  in  Palestine,  as 
of  sufficient  importance  to  be  excerpted  by  him.  But 
on  closer  examination  this  objection  to  the  explanation 
given  develops  into  a  supporting  argument.  It  was 
mentioned  above  that  down  to  Rabbi  Hai  the  Sheeltot 
were  not  mentioned  by  any  Gaon,  which  makes  the 
frequent  quotations  from  them  in  the  3"n  all  the  more 
remarkable.  Another  point  to  be  noted  is  that  Rabbi 
Aha,  the  author  of  the  Sheeltot,  is  mentioned  by  name 
four  times  in  :"n,  but  his  opinions  are  each  time  intro- 
duced with  the  word  "ICK.  whether  they  are  statements 
of  his  appearing  in  the  Sheeltot,  or  such  as  are  not  taken 
thence.  An  interpretation  of  these  facts  would  properly 
permit  us  to  infer  that  the  author  of  the  3"n  was  per- 
sonally acquainted  with  Rabbi  Aha,  and  was  told  one  thing 
and  another  by  him  in  conversation,  but  his  work,  the 
Sheeltot,  written  in  Palestine,  was  not  known  to  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  who  may  have  written  his  own  Halakic  collection 
earlier  than  Rabbi  Aha  wrote  his.  Hence  the  Sheeltot 
quotations,  which  on  their  face  are  passages  from  the 
book  reproduced  literally,  cannot  have  been  put  in  by 
Rabbi  Jehudai  himself.  The  same  explanation  applies 
to  them  as  to  the  fairly  numerous  decisions  of  Rabbi 

II,  528.  The  rf~\  bsr  a'rt  quoted  by  French  authors  was  j"n  II,  as  appears 
from  Tosafot,  ffullin,  46  b,  catchword  'oaiN ,  yet  it  was  not  identical  with 
our  text  of  the  second  version.  For  example,  the  J"OD  quotes  passages 
from  the  n'n  of  n*i,  to  be  found  neither  in  3*n  I  nor  II.  Comp.  also 
Freimann,  We-Hizhir,  II,  82-3. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  IOJ 

Jehudai  himself  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  3*n — doubtless 
a  pupil  of  Rabbi  Jehudai  inserted,  in  appropriate  places 
in  his  work,  opinions  of  the  master  known  from  other 
sources1.  In  the  same  way  he  enriched  it  with  intro- 
ductions taken  from  the  Sheeltot.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  this  same  disciple  may  have  sat  at  the  feet  of  Rabbi 
Aha,  too,  while  the  latter  still  lived  at  Babylonia. 

Accordingly,  the  development  of  the  3"n  must  have 
proceeded  as  follows:  About  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  Rabbi  Jehudai  composed  a  Halakic  compendium, 
which  he  named  nii>na  maSi 2.  This  work  of  his  was 
provided  with  additions  by  a  pupil.  The  additions  were 
mainly  of  two  sorts,  introductions3,  taken  from  the 
Sheeltot,  to  comprehensive  sections  of  the  work ;  and 
extracts  from  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Jehudai,  together  with 
other  of  his  oral  and  written  decisions.  The  result  was 
the  work  which  came  to  the  hands  of  the  Franco-German 
scholars.  This  same  work  of  Rabbi  Jehudai's,  with  the 
additions  and  introductions  inserted  by  his  pupil,  formed 
the  foundation  upon  which  Rabbi  Simon  N"T"P,  in  about 
900,  built  up  a  remodelled  work,  known  to  the  last  of 
the  Geonim  and  to  the  Hispano-Proven^al  Jews  as  the 
"  Halakot  Gedolot  of  Rabbi  Simon  NT"p>."  Originally,  it 
is  fair  to  assume,  the  latter  book  circulated  under  its 
full  title,  pyot?  'n  jpnt?  mbnj  nia/n — "the  Halakot  Gedolot 
[of  Rabbi  Jehudai,  of  course,  there  being  no  other  in 
existence]  arranged  [in  Hebrew,  the  same  as  composed4] 

1  The  Mishnah,  the  work  of  Rabbi,  and  also  the  Seder  Rab  Amram 
contain  teachings  by  their  authors,  who  are  mentioned  by  name,  and 
as  this  does  not  invalidate  their  claims  of  authorship,  so  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  Rabbi  Jehudai's  name  in  the  j'rt  testifies  for  his  authorship 
rather  than  against  it.  In  the  last  case,  the  author's  blindness  is  an 
additional  consideration.  Many  a  sentence  dictated  by  him  directly 
may  have  been  set  down  by  his  pupils  with  the  introductory  words, 
'•  Rabbi  Jehudai  says." 

The  title  was  probably  derived  from  the  Talmud,  Shebu'ot,  458. 

'  Most  of  the  SheSltot  quotations  are  of  this  kind. 

*  On  the  various  uses  of  jpn,  comp.  Zunz,  Gtsammelte  Schrtften,  III,  51, 
and  below,  p.  161. 


108  THE    GEONIM 

by  Kabbi  Simon."  Later,  familiar  use  wore  the  title 
down  to  the  Halakot  Gedolot  of  Rabbi  Simon,  and  the 
name  of  the  real  author  dropped  into  oblivion. 

LATER  AMPLIFICATIONS  OF  THE  HALAKOT  GEDOLOT. 

Besides  these  two  principal  forms  of  the  J^n,  there  were, 
of  course,  various  texts  of  each,  as  was  bound  to  happen 
with  books  consulted  and  studied  as  industriously  as 
these.  It  was  equally  inevitable  that  they  should  suffer 
additions  and  omissions.  Aside  from  the  Spanish  jfn, 
which,  it  will  be  recalled,  is  identical  with  i"n  II,  and, 
according  to  my  opinion,  corresponds  to  the  version  of 
Rabbi  Simon,  we  find  references  in  some  of  the  old  authors 
to  a  3"n  from  Palestine  and  also  a  J"n  from  Babylonia1. 
In  view  thereof  one  is  hardly  justified  in  making  categoric 
statements  regarding  the  origin  and  author  of  either,  on  the 
basis  of  nothing  more  than  the  two  printed  texts  of  the  3*n . 

On  pp.  383-97,  in  the  G.  S.,  will  be  found  some  Genizah 
fragments  in  the  Taylor-Schechter  Collection  which  agree 
neither  with  j"n  I  nor  with  J"n  II.  I  would  refer  the  reader 
particularly  to  p.  397,  which  will  be  seen  to  differ  from  the 
printed  texts  (io8b  ;  ed.  Hildesheimer,  443)  containing  the 
expressions  'i:n  plio  JTN1.  Again,  in  some  other  Genizah 
fragments2  Sheeltot  quotations  are  not  met  with.  These 

1  The  author  of  the  i"w,  I,  n6a,  introduces  a  quotation  with  the 
words  taan  nro:o  a"n,  but  the  sentence  thus  introduced  is  to  be  found 
neither  in  a"rr  I,  nor  in  a"n  II.  The  same  author  speaks  of  bxc  j"na 
nrta  'UJNTi  rorur  »«J«TI  D'Jiwi  owrc:  (a  similar  description  of  3*rt2  occurs  in 
p*Vn,  par.  243,  49  d,  to  which  my  attention  has  been  called  by  Dr.  Marx), 
but  his  meaning  is  not  quite  clear.  It  is  possible  that  rnVru  rvo'TTO  here 
does  not  mean  a  work  at  all,  but  only  "in  important  decisions."  The 
author  of  the  'Ittur,  II,  22  c,  refers  to  '"NO  1N2C  NT'p  c*-n  nwVrr !  Comp. 
G.  S.,  pp.  400-1,  which  fragment,  as  is  explained  1.  c.,  p.  352,  is  of 
Palestinian  origin. 

3  I  have  in  my  possession,  from  the  Taylor-Schechter  Collection,  a  copy 
of  a  few  badly  damaged  leaves  of  the  a*n,  which  contain  the  section 
on  Kliddush.  The  section  begins  :  to  imai  'npb  'ten  DV  nn  1121  :  rfmm  \riTp 
....  pn,  and  accordingly  has  not  the  Sheeltot  quotations  which  are  to 
be  found  in  :"n  I  and  II. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  109 

variations  seem  to  offer  strong  corroboration  of  the  view 
expressed  above,  that  the  original  form  of  the  a^n  did  not 
contain  the  Sheeltot  quotations.  Likewise,  the  Genizah 
fragments  present  an  arrangement  of  the  material  departing 
essentially  from  that  which  we  are  familiar  with  in  the 
printed  versions J. 

In  defining  the  relation  of  the  Sheeltot  to  the  Halakot 
Gedolot,  an  important  circumstance  must  not  be  overlooked. 
Doubtless  Rabbi  Aha  must  have  embodied  a  number  of 
Halakot  and  Talmudic  explanations,  formulated  in  the 
Saboraic  and  early  Geonic  times  in  his  work,  in  their 
literal  wording.  Such  use  of  a  common  source  would 
account  for  some  of  the  passages  that  agree  literatim  et 
verbatim  in  the  two  books.  As  we  saw  above  2,  the  last  of 
the  Geonim  cite  teachings  and  explanations,  in  the  form  of 
oral  traditions,  from  the  Saboraic  and  the  early  Geonic 
period,  identical  word  for  word  with  sentences  in  the  3'n. 
How  much  more  may  we  expect  to  find  such  literal  accord 
between  contemporaries  like  Rabbi  Jehudai  and  Rabbi  Aha. 
They  may  have  been  disciples  of  the  same  teachers,  and 
certainly  were  members  of  the  same  academy. 

Another  class  of  Sheeltot  quotations  in  the  J'n  can  readily 
be  shown  to  be  later  additions.  The  passage  in  the  a*n 
on  the  insertion  of  ffoan  y^  in  the  prayers  on  the  Sabbath  of 
Hanukkah  is  a  case  in  point.  The  section  cnn  B>K"rt  raen 
— Kin  snvn  which  occurs  in  both  versions  of  the  3*n 
(25  c ;  ed.  Hildesheimer,  85)  is  a  repetition  of  Sheelta 
XXVI,  85,  but  the  following  section  pBD1M  —  -paroi 
demonstrates  that  the  author  of  the  3"n  differs  essentially 
from  Rabbi  Aha  in  his  view  of  this  liturgical  regulation. 
Rabbi  Aha  holds  that  on  the  Sabbath  of  Hanukkah,  by 
D'oan  is  to  be  inserted  both  in  the  'Amidah  and  in  the 
grace  after  meals;  the  author  of  the  a^n  insists  upon  the 

1  Comp.  the  fragment  reproduced  below,  p.  382.  I  have  noticed  in 
other  Genizah  fragments,  besides,  an  order  essentially  different  from  the 
printed  versions. 

1  Comp.  pp.  73-4,  above. 


110  THE    GEONIM 

former  only.  This  difference  of  opinion  did  not  escape 
the  notice  of  Kabbi  Jehudai's  pupil.  He  added  to  the 
work  of  his  master  the  passage  in  the  Sheeltot  bearing 
upon  the  question,  but  that  Rabbi  Jehudai's  opinion  might 
not  be  contravened,  he  omitted  Kabbi  Aha's  final  sentence. 
He  could  not  avoid  stating  the  same  Halakah  in  two  forms, 
conveying  the  same  content  and  differing  only  in  their 
verbal  terms.  Side  by  side  with  each  other,  we  have 
Rabbi  Aha's  view  and  Rabbi  Jehudai's,  on  the  insertion 
of  D^wn  hy  on  the  Sabbath  of  HanukJcah. 

There  are  also  a  number  of  other  elements  whiqh,  like 
the  quotations  from  the  Sheeltot,  do  not  belong  to  the 
original  component  parts  of  the  3"n.  Even  when  they 
occur  in  both  versions,  they  are  still  to  be  looked  upon 
as  additions.  At  the  end  of  the  section  on  rv¥%  there 
are  three  Halakot  of  liturgical  content  totally  unconnected 
with  what  precedes — enough  to  make  one  suspicious  of 
their  right  to  be  considered  an  integral  part  of  the  real 
3"n.  The  last  of  the  doubtful  Halakot  is  irrefutable  evi- 
dence of  the  spuriousness  of  all  three.  It  teaches  that 
Kaddish  and  Baraku  may  be  recited  with  but  six 
worshippers  present.  The  author  of  Masseket  Soferim, 
X,  8,  informs  us  that  as  late  as  his  time,  several  centuries 
after  Jehudai,  the  Babylonians  insisted  upon  the  presence 
of  ten  men,  while  the  Palestinians  contented  themselves 
with  six1.  The  only  proper  inference  is  that  this  passage 
in  the  2"n  was  interpolated  at  a  late  time,  probably  after 
the  date  of  Masseket  Soferim,  a  Palestinian  work  cited  by 
no  Babylonian  author  of  the  Geonic  period2.  The  other 
two  Halakot  are  taken  from  the  Seder  Rob  Amram  3  (26  a 

1  The  text  of  Mas.  Soferim  bears  various  interpretations.   The  conception 
presented   in  3"n  agrees  with   Kabbenu  Tarn's ;   comp.  Miiller  on  this 
passage.     That  none  of  the  old  authors  referred  to  the  passage  in  j*n, 
may  also  be  adduced  as  a  proof  of  its  spuriousness. 

2  Rabbenu  Hai  quotes  Masseket  Seforim,  not  Masseket  Soferim.     Comp. 
above,  p.  73,  n.  i. 

3  Epstein,  1.  c.,  mentions  neither  of  these  two  quotations  from  the  2*n 
in  the  y"ic. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  III 

and  31  a).  As  to  the  first  of  them,  it  is  questionable 
whether  its  form  in  the  Seder,  as  we  have  it,  is  the 
original  form.  The  words  Wl^  *fyffOn  in  the  Seder  are 
very  likely  to  be  a  later  addition,  because  Albargeloni, 
in  his  DTiyn  ISD,  178,  says  that  he  did  not  find  them  in 
a  Geonic  Responsum  in  which  this  Halakah  was  quoted. 
As  the  words  in  question  were  in  the  J"n  used  by 
Albargeloni1,  as  he  tells  us,  we  are  obviously  dealing 
with  a  comparatively  old  addition. 

The  sentences  and  short  paragraphs  which  we  have 
been  discussing  and  characterising  as  additions  to  the 
:Trr  do  not  exhaust  the  series  of  interpolations  to  which 
the  book  was  subjected.  As  the  versions  before  us  are 
constituted,  there  must  be  parts,  of  considerable  size,  not 
in  the  original  plan  of  the  book.  But  in  order  to  recognise 
them  as  interjected  members,  it  is  necessary  to  understand 
clearly  the  underlying  plan  and  construction  of  the  first 
Halakic  compendium  of  the  post-Talmudic  time. 

PLAN  AND  PURPOSE  OF  THE  HALAKOT  GEDOLOT. 

At  the  time  of  the  Geonim  the  Talmud; was  not  only 
the  authoritative  source  for/religious  practices,  but  also 
the  work  the  study  of/ which  constituted  the  chief  task  of 
a  Jewish  scholar.  The  vast  accumulation  of  material  in  it, 
anc^its  discursive  manner  of  presenting  the  subject-matter, 
made  both  its  practical  use  and  theoretic  investigation  tasks 
of  huge  difficulty.  The  Karaitic  schism  dating  from  the 
time  of  Rabbi  Jehudai  demanded  inexorably  a  codification 
of  the  religious  laws  affecting  practical  conduct2.  The 

1  The  editor  of  the  D'nyn  'c  observes  that  the  quotation  is  not  to  be 
found  in  our  a'n  ! 

'l  Decided  anti-Karaitic  tendencies  manifest  themselves  in  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  especially  in  his  Responsa.  The  most  detailed  of  his  decisions 
is  that  on  the  importance  of  p'Dn  in  n"ir,  153,  and  it  is  obviously 
directed  against  the  Karaites,  who  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
phylacteries.  Also,  I  entertain  no  doubt  as  to  the  auti-Karaitic  purpose 
of  the  famous  decision  by  Rabbi  Jehudai  regarding  the  use  of  DTI  otD  for 


112  THE    GEONIM 

scholar  and  the  educated  layman  alike  had  to  be  given  the 
possibility  of  readily  distinguishing  the  true  from  the  false, 
the  "  traditional  law  "  from/the  law  of  the  Karaites.  This 
goal  could  be  reached  in  one  of  two  ways.  Either  the 
Talmud  had  to  be  shortened  and  reshaped,  so/  as  to  bring 
it  within  the  capacity  of  the  average  scholar,  or  the 
Talmudic  Halakot  had  to  be  grouped  anew.  These  two 
tendencies1  in  the  code  literature,  whose  classic  repre- 
sentatives in  a  later  generation  were  Alfasi  and  Maimonides, 
respectively,  existed  in  the  Geonic  time.  By  the  side  of 
the  Geonic  Halakot  Gedolot  there  were  the  Geonic  Halakot 
Pesukot  or  Kezubot.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  therefore, 
that  it  was  lack  of  creative  ability  that  forced  Rabbi 
Jehudai  to  shorten  the  Talmud,  instead  of  systematising 
it  anew.  We  could  not  have  expected  him  to  produce 
so  artistic  a  work  as  the  Yad  of  Maimonides,  but  it  would 
not  have  transcended  his  powers  to  systematize  the  Halakot 
in  their  rudimentary  form,  as  we  have  them  systematized 
in  the  Halakot  Kezubot.  Rather  it  seems  that  the  author 
of  the  j"n  had  good  reasons  for  keeping  to  the  arrangement 
of  the  Talmud. 

His  work  was  intended  to  serve  two  purposes  at  once — 
it  was  to  be  a  guide  for  the  student  desirous  of  acquainting 
himself  with  the  Talmud,  and  also  it  was  to  enable  the 
scholar  to  decide  a  case  submitted  to  him,  according  to 
law,  without  having  to  wade  through  the  three  thousand 
folio  pages  of  the  Talmud.  Taking  into  consideration  that 
it  was  a  first  attempt  at  these  two  tasks,  one  cannot  but 
admit  that  the  3"n  was  a  brilliant  achievement. 

a  nil,  which  caused  such  great  embarrassment  later.  The  Karaites  denied 
totally  the  obligatory  character  of  nu  nVlc.  Likewise,  his  decision  in 
E"n,  103,  on  a  rror  who  has  married  again  without  rrs'^n,  is  anti-Karaitic, 
as  appears  from  a  comparison  with  'Anan's  book  of  laws,  170.  The  old 
view  is  found  also  in  a  Responsum  in  y"c,  2  a,  10,  which  is  not  in 
a  corrupt  state,  as  Miiller,  Mafteah,  69,  note  25,  thinks.  It  represents 
the  old  Halakah. 

1  Comp.  the  art.  "Law,  Codification  of  the,"  by  the  present  writer  in 
the  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  113 

Rabbi  Jehudai's  method  was  the  following  :  In  the  first 
place  he  set  about  and  he  succeeded  in  excluding  from  his 
work  almost  all  Haggadic  elements.  For  religious  practice 
the  Haggadah  had  no  value,  and  as  a  number  of  Haggadic 
Midrashim  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  student,  he  needed 
no  guide  to  this  department  of  literature.  The  exclusion 
of  the  Haggadah  at  once  produced  a  considerable  reduction 
in  the  bulk  of  the  material.  Still  keeping  practical  needs 
in  mind,  the  author  excluded  also  the  material  which  no 
longer  had  application  to  the  religious  practice  of  his  time 
and  of  the  Diaspora  \  The  whole  of  the  Order  Kodashim  z 
excepting  the  treatise  Hullin  alone,  was  not  included  in 
the  j'n  ,  nor  was  the  treatise  Hagigah  of  the  second  Order, 
and  the  treatise  Sotah  of  the  third  Order.  This  abbreviated 
Talmud  was  condensed  still  more  by  the  exclusion  of  the 
discussions  as  far  as  possible.  Only  the  results  derived 
from  the  argumentation  are  stated.  In  this  way  it  became 
possible  for  Rabbi  Jehudai  to  accomplish  the  feat,  for 
instance,  of  compressing  the  eleven  folios  constituting  the 
first  chapter  of  the  first  Talmudic  treatise,  Berakot.  into 
a  single  folio.  It  marks  a  big  step  forward  in  the  direction 
of  an  independent,  systematic  presentation  of  the  Talmudic 
material,  that  Rabbi  Jehudai  succeeded  in  his  attempt  to 
collect  certain  portions  from  their  places  here  and  there  in 
the  Talmud  and  group  them  together  according  to  content. 

In  one  and  the  same  treatise  the  Talmud  expounds  the 
prescription  for  the  Sabbath  lights  and  the  prescription  for 
the  Hanukkah  candles,  connecting  with  the  latter  also  the 
treatment  of  the  Hanukkah  liturgy.  The  same  treatise 
contains,  besides,  the  laws  of  circumcision,  being  introduced 
there  incidentally  to  the  special  case  of  this  ceremony 


1  Of  the  Order  Zera'im,  he  incorporated,  beside  D'xbD,  rrnr,  rfcn,  which 
had  practical  bearing,  also  HUE,  probably  because  in  ancient  times  the 
command  of  Peah  was  executed  by  the  pious  even  in  Babylonia,  though 
meant  to  apply  only  to  Palestine.  Comp.  the  Responsum  in  G.  S.,  p.  aaa, 
and  the  remarks  introductory  to  it,  pp.  217-18. 

3  On  the  later  additions  comp.  below,  pp.  115-16. 
I  I 


114  THE 

performed  on  the  Sabbath.  The  author  of  the  3"n  has 
dealt  with  these  various  subjects  systematically.  Whatever 
the  Talmud  has  to  say  on  Hanukkah  he  put  together  under 
the  separate  and  independent  heading  roi^n  JTDpn,  and 
whatever  it  has  to  say  on  circumcision  went  in  the  class 
of  n^D  mabn .  A  still  more  striking  illustration  of  his  fresh 
attitude  is  afforded  by  his  gathering  together  what  the 
Talmud  has  to  say  upon  the  subject  of  proselytes,  and  joining 
it  to  n^D  mairi ,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  circumcision  is  the 
conditio  sine  qua  lion  for  admission  to  Judaism.  Bold  as 
he  was  in  these  attempts  of  his  at  systematic  grouping,  he 
yet,  as  is  natural,  could  not  give  up  entirely  his  dependence 
upon  the  Talmud.  For  instance,  the  two  subjects  men- 
tioned, mun  'n  and  n^D  'n,  he  inserted  after  rats',  only  because 
the  Talmud  deals  with  them  in  the  treatise  Shabbat. 

The  aim  of  the  J"n,  to  attain  to  an  organic  system 
according  to  which  to  present  the  Halakot,  is  well  exem- 
plified in  the  consecutive  sections  on  the  intermediate 
days  of  the  festivals,  on  mourning,  ritual  defilement,  the 
priestly  blessing,  synagogue  ordinances,  Tefillin,  Mezuzot, 
and  Zizzit.  This  apparent  mixture  of  heterogeneous  ele- 
ments is  in  reality  a  connected  series.  In  arranging  the 
order  of  the  first  two  he  followed  the  example  of  the 
Mishnah  and  the  Talmud,  in  which  they  come  together 
for  the  reason  that  the  degree  of  abstinence  from  work 
imposed  upon  mourners  (during  the  first  seven  days  after 
a  death)  is  the  same  as  the  degree  imposed  upon  all  during 
the  intermediate  days  of  a  festival,  Passover  or  Tabernacles. 
The  author  of  the  a"n  logically  followed  up  these  laws  for 
mourners  by  the  prescriptions  important  for  a  priest  in 
mourning.  They  set  forth  in  what  circumstances  a  priest 
is  permitted  to  defile  himself  upon  a  corpse.  Interested  in 
these  laws  of  the  priest,  he  took  occasion  to  speak  also 
of  the  priestly  blessing  at  the  public  service.  These  two 
sets  of  laws,  on  defilement  and  the  priestly  blessing,  dispose 
of  all  the  duties  and  privileges  of  a  priest  in  the  Diaspora 
and  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple.  But  outside  of 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  115 

the  priestly  blessing,  the  only  other  element  of  the  liturgy 
requiring  a  communal  public  service,  is  the  reading  from 
the  Scriptures.  The  natural  order,  therefore,  is  to  proceed 
with  the  regulations  for  reading  from  the  Torah,  the 
character  and  make-up  of  the  scrolls,  and  the  ordinances 
for  the  synagogue,  the  place  at  which  the  law  is  read.  In 
effect,  the  scroll  is  identical  with  the  Mezuzak  and 
the  Te/Ulin,  so  far  as  the  rules  for  making  them  go, 
and  in  view  of  the  holy  character  of  the  three.  The 
sections  on  the  two  latter  subjects  therefore  follow  of 
themselves  upon  the  one  dealing  with  the  mm  'D,  and 
the  next,  the  section  on  Zizzit,  joins  that  on  Tefllin 
without  a  break,  both  being  the  paraphernalia  connected 
with  the  Morning  Prayer. 

If  we  were  to  stop  and  analyse  the  whole  of  the  a"n 
in  the  foregoing  way,  we  should  find  that  its  author 
conformed  as  far  as  possible  to  the  order  of  the  Talmud. 
His  procedure  was  novel  and  independent  only  in  that 
he  brought  together,  under  single  comprehensive  headings, 
small  portions  dealing  with  a  given  subject  that  are 
scattered  in  many  treatises. 

An  examination  of  the  plan  of  the  a'n  shows  that  the 
sections  on  mion  n^yo  roroo  ninna  DTQT  could  not  possibly 
have  been  arranged  by  the  author  himself.  They  contain 
nothing  that  was  of  importance  for  the  religious  practice 
of  his  time,  and  to  such  portions  of  the  Talmud  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  as  we  have  seen,  paid  no  attention  in  his  book. 
And  granted  that  he  may  have  changed  his  system  when 
he  reached  the  treatises  enumerated,  we  should  still  be 
called  upon  to  account  for  the  fact  that  he  reduced  the 
j  20  folios  of  the  treatise  Zebahim  to  a  half-folio  *.  While 


1  And  even  this  half-  folio,  superscribed  DTUI  roD^n,  contains  a  big 
piece  from  Middot  and  the  whole  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  Mishnah 
Zebahim,  an  unusual  element  in  the  j*n,  which  is  in  the  habit  of  giving 
extracts  from  the  Talmud,  but  not  from  the  Mishnah.  This  fifth  section  of 
the  Mishnah  Zebahim  formed  a  part  of  the  prayer-book  even  in  the  Geonic 
time  (see  0.  S.,  p.  116,  and  R.  Saadia's  Commentary  on  Berakot,  aaa),  and 
was  probably  appended  to  the  s'n  by  the  copyists  for  practical  purposes. 

I  2 


Il6  THE    GEONIM 

elsewhere  Rabbi  Jehudai  excludes  all  Haggadic  material 
on  principle,  his  n^yo  'n  consists  of  a  single  legend  taken 
from  the  Talmudic  treatise  of  the  same  name  —  nothing 
else!  Temurah  is  in  pretty  much  the  same  case,  and  if 
we  except  the  comparatively  small  portions  dealing  with 
matters  of  practical  importance,  which  in  other  parts  of 
the  a*n  are  presented  under  the  headings  TW¥,  nm»,  p^an, 
m¥j?,  the  no  folios  of  Menahot  are  reduced  to  a  half-folio! 
Moreover,  the  variations  between  these  sections  of  Kodashim 
in  the  two  versions  of  the  :Tn  are  of  so  radical  a  nature 
that  they  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  be  of  common  origin. 
Though  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  give  a  plausible  explana- 
tion of  how  these  sections  slipped  into  the  2"n  ,  yet  the  proofs 
demonstrating  their  spuriousness  are  too  convincing  to 
admit  of  any  doubt. 

To  the  questionable  sections  enumerated  above  we  must 
also  add  the  last  section,  1SDH  nia^n  ,  a  hodge-podge  which 
in  its  present  form  cannot  have  originated  with  the  author 
of  the  3'n.  My  supposition  is  that  it  is  a  composite  of  two 
independent  sections,  which  in  some  way  were  badly  mixed 
up  with  each  other.  The  one  probably  bore  the  super- 
scription as  at  present,  IBOn  JYGPn,  the  other  'iSD  'n  = 
onao  nota,  "  The  Section  on  the  [Biblical  and  Rabbinical] 
Writings."  A  copyist  must  have  read  the  second  as  a 
single  word,  and,  besides,  confused  the  single  letters  1  and 
"l,  so  that  the  second  superscription  became  identical  with 
the  first,  and  was  dropped. 

Rabbi  Jehudai's  work,  which  had  to  submit  to  these 
numerous  interpolations,  changes,  and  extensions,  had  to 
serve,  besides,  as  the  basis  of  two  other  books,  retaining 
his  name  as  author,  viz.,  the  1X1  ni3?n  l,  called  also 


1  Although  a  great  deal  in  it  is  not  in  our  present  texts  of  the  a*n, 
this  does  not  prove  that  other  works  were  drawn  upon  for  it.  As  was 
remarked  before,  the  a*n  as  we  have  it  now  is  anything  but  complete. 
It  is  curious  that  Epstein  should  maintain  that  the  passage  on  i:\vcm 
in  wi  nobri,  18,  and  j?"nc,  45  a,  is  not  quoted  from  a*n,  but  from  the  D*rt 
of  Rabbi  Jehudai  ;  it  occurs  literally  in  j"n  II,  148,  and  also  in  a'rt  I, 
37  c,  though  in  the  latter  place  it  is  in  shortened  form,  with  '131  ; 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  117 

,  which  has  been  edited  by  Schlossberg  (Versailles, 
1886),  after  an  Oxford  MS.,  and  nuixp  mabn,  which  has 
been  published  by  Horowitz  in  the  first  part  of  his  jmin 
D^1t?N"i  ^  after  a  Parma  MS.  (Frankfort-on-the-Main,  1881). 
The  former,  the  IN")  rvo^n ,  is  nothing  more  than  a  shortened 
Hebrew  translation  of  parts  of  the  a"n  (so  far  as  known, 
the  first  translation  ever  made  from  any  language  into 
Hebrew),  while  the  latter,  the  nmvp  'n,  is  an  attempt  to  give 
a  resume  of  the  J^n ,  by  omitting  the  Talmudic  elements. 
According  to  a  statement  made  by  Rabbi  Hai1,  this  resume 
of  the  J*n  and  others  of  similar  character  were  not  compiled 
until  fully  a  century  after  Rabbi  Jehudai's  time,  and  then 
outside  of  Babylonia.  He  therefore  warns  students  to  be 
very  cautious  in  using  these  abstracts  of  the  J"n. 

CODIFICATION  NOT  FAVOURED. 

A  century  after  Rabbi  Jehudai,  Rabbi  Paltoi  (died  858),  / 
the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  was  asked  what". was  more  advisable 
to  study,  the  Talmud  or/  the  Halakot  taken  from  it  and 
systematically  grouped.  His  answer  was,  that  they  who 
devote  themselves  to  the  study  of  the  Halakot  only  do  not 
act  properly,  yea,  it  is  forbidden  to  do  it,  for  they  diminish 

Abudraham,  142,  also  quotes  it  from  the  j*n.  That  p"n  and  c"n  respectively 
are  based  on  3"n,  and  not  the  latter  on  the  former,  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  the  old  authorities  speak  of  nrnsp  ;*n  and  nipiDE  2*n ,  meaning  that 
the  rraisp  and  mpiDD  are  taken  from  the  :*n,  Epstein,  1.  c.,  64,  quotes 
rnnsp  j"n  from  Mordecai,  Shebu'at,  788,  and  emends  it  to  ninsp  mrrn, 
but  the  same  expression  occurs  in  many  other  places  ;  comp.,  for  instance, 
Vo,  244,  416  ;  and  Pardes,  i8b.  On  a  single  manuscript  leaf  in  the  Jew. 
Theol.  Seminary,  containing  the  passage  from  Mordecai  referred  to, 
the  reading  agrees  with  that  proposed  by  Epstein,  but  it  seems  to  be 
a  later  emendation.  Comp.  bn'ac,  147  :  rmn  'D  Vc  D*nii ! 

1  Comp.  I'IN,  II,  177  a.  The  enigmatic  words  uno  fra'jpN  in  this  Respon- 
sum  by  Rabbi  Hai  mean  "City  Secretary";  comp.  in  Harkavy,  86, 
the  words  of  Rabbi  Hai,  *»no  IED  Drabip:x,  and  po':pn  is  only  another  way 
of  spelling  Dio'npx,  and  the  Responsum  is  cited  as  having  been  dictated 
by  Rabbi  Hai  to  the  communal  secretary.  A  less  likely  hypothesis  is 
that  Dio>:Ynp3M  is  to  be  read  for  MT.O  po'jpN,  as  G.  S.,  p.  37,  which  would  in- 
dicate that  the  Responsum  was  directed  to  Rabbi  Kalonymos,  of  Lucca. 


Il8  THE    GEONIM 

the  Torah,  and  in  the  Scriptures  it  is  said,  "  It  pleased  the 
Lord,  for  his  righteousness'  sake,  to  magnify  the  law,  and 
make  it  honourable"-  (Isa.  xlii.  21).  They  do  still  more 
evil ;  it  is  they  who  cause  the  Torah  to  fall  into  oblivion. 
The  collections  of  brief  Halakot  were  not  compiled  for  the 
purpose  that  they  should  become  the  real  object  of  study, 
but  for  the  purpose  that  one  who  has  studied  the  whole  of 
the  Talmud,  and  has  occupied  himself  with  all  its  details, 
may  consult  the  Halakot  in  case  one  or  another  thing  seems 
doubtful  to  him,  and  he  cannot  explain  it I. 

Rabbi  Jehudai's  work  had  a  fate  similar  to  the  code  of 
Maimonides  later.  Its  practical  advantages  were  so  striking 
that  the  study  of  the  Talmud  was  seriously  menaced,  and 
the  Geonim  very  properly  raised  the  voice  of  warning 
against  it  as  an  authoritative  source  replacing  the  Talmud 
as  such.  Rabbi  Paltoi  did  not  mean  to  deny  the  authority 
of  the  Halakot.  He  doubtless  shared  the  universal  admira- 
tion for  their  author.  His  aim  was  to  make  clear  that  the 
Halakot  were  not  intended  to  supplant  the  Talmud2,  but 
only  to  supplement  it,  and  the  above  characterisation  of 
the  3"n  goes  far  to  strengthen  the  position  assumed  by 
Rabbi  Paltoi. 

During  a  period  of  nearly  two  centuries,  the  interval 
between  Rabbi  Jehudai  and  Rabbi  Saadia,  we  hear  of  no 
activity  in  the  field  of  the  Halakah.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
Geonim  were  disinclined  from  the  work  of  codification. 
Yet  it  must  be  considered  that  their  time  and  energies 
were  absorbed  in  giving  replies  to  the  questions  of  a 

1  A  Responsum   by  Babbi  Paltoi  in  :"n,  no;   in  TOCN,  II,  50,  the 
question  runs  :  mjncp  rrobni  picyb  IN  niabni  pwrfj,  which  may  be  explained 
as  asking  which  Halakot  should  be  given  the  preference  in  study,  the 
Halakot  [Gedolot  of  Rabbi  Jehudai],  or  the  nwrap  rrobn  extracted  from 
the  former.    The  more  probable  meaning  is  that  the  first  ni^ni  stands 
for  Talmud,  the  expression  having  been  chosen  under  the  influence  of  the 
following  ma1*™. 

2  The  judgment  of  Rabbi  Paltoi  on  a"n  is,  mutatis  mutandis,  the  same 
as  that  of  the  -co'vn  on   Maimonides'   Yad ',   comp.   the   remark   in   his 
Responsum  XXXI,  9. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  119 

practical  and  a  theoretic  nature  put  to  them— replies  which 
in  part  served  the  purposes  for  which  one  usually  resorts  to 
compendiums  and  reference  books.  What  Muller  says  in 
his  Mafteah,  about  Rabbi  Natronai  ben  Hilai,  Gaon  of 
Sura,  and  a  contemporary  of  Rabbi  Paltoi,  that  he  com- 
piled a  series  of  Halakot  Kezubot,  cannot  be  proved  a  fact, 
and  in  view  of  Rabbi  Paltoi's  words,  it  is  highly  improbable. 
The  "  Brief  Decisions  "  published  by  Horowitz  in  I"ETI,  II,  5 
et  seq.,  after  a  Parma  MS.,  are  assuredly  not  attributable 
to  Rabbi  Natronai.  They  are  a  late  compilation,  without 
plan  or  system,  of  Geonic  and  old  French  *  decisions.  The 
Geonic  portion  is  taken  in  large  part  from  the  Responsa 
and  decisions  of  Rabbi  Jehudai 2.  Another  portion  may 
perhaps  be  traceable  to  Rabbi  Natronai's  Responsa  as  its 
source  3.  As  for  the  superscription  over  this  conglomerate 
material,  pw  wntM  'm  roen,  it  is,  without  a  doubt,  the 
invention  of  an  untrustworthy  copyist. 

PRAYERS  FIRST  PUT  IN  WRITING. 

Nevertheless,  the  time  we  are  speaking  of  has  a  work  to 
its  credit  which  is  closely  akin  to  the  Halakah,  the  Seder 
Rab  Amram,  originating  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth 
century.  When  Rabbi  Jehudai  ventured  to  set  aside  the 
old  custom  and  permitted  the  writing  down  of  the  Halakah, 
the  prayers  still  remained  to  a  large  extent  under  the  ban 
against  written  transmission.  A  Responsum  of  Rabbi 

1  Rabbenu  Gershom  is  mentioned  by  name,  p.  7.  The  Responsum 
rnya  niton,  6,  is  by  Rashi,  and  may  be  found  in  TmVi  ncns  'n  's?n,  42,  in 
a  more  correct  form.  Comp.  Schorr,  He-Haluz,  XII,  97. 

a  The  brief  oral  decisions  by  Rabbi  Jehudai  in  7*3,  45,  are  most  of  them 
to  be  found  here  again. 

3  The  decision  (p.  8)  regarding  a  priest  who  left  Judaism  for  a  time  is  an 
extract  from  Rabbi  Natronai's  Responsum  in  a'n,  54,  and  D*n,  8,  quoted 
also  in  biacK,  I,  28.  Likewise,  the  decision,  following  close  upon  it, 
regarding  any  renegade  who  returns  to  Judaism,  goes  back  to  Rabbi 
Natronai's  Responsum  in  \"w,  24  b,  8.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Responsum 
on  p.  12  regarding  the  sick  man,  contradicts  the  view  of  Rabbi  Natronai 
as  given  in  "jn'jc,  42  ;  comp.,  however,  3*n,  48. 


120  THE    GEONIM 

Jehudai  s  informs  us  that  the  Reader  at  the  synagogue  in 
his  time  was  permitted  to  use  a  prayer-book  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  and  other  fast-days.  Such  leniency  was  not 
extended  to  the  festivals — he  was  expected  to  recite  the 
prayers  by  heart  on  them1.  At  a  time  in  which  the  Reader 
was  obliged  to  recite  the  prayers  by  heart,  it  goes  without 
saying  that  the  members  of  the  congregation  surely  had  no 
prayer-books,  or  at  least  did  not  use  them  in  public. 

But  it  did  not  take  long  for  the  last  remnants  of  the 
prohibition  against  the  writing-  down  of  religious  works  to 
disappear.  In  a  Responsum,  Rabbi  Natronai,  whose  period 
of  activity  is  a  hundred  years  after  Rabbi  Jehudai,  dis- 
cusses the  question  whether  a  blind  man  may  officiate  as 
Reader  in  the  synagogue2.  He  decides  that  there  is  no 
objection  to  his  reciting  the  prayers,  but  he  may  not  give 
the  lesson  from  the  Torah,  because  it  is  imperative  that  the 
latter  must  be  read  from  the  scroll.  This  reveals  that,  in 
Rabbi  Natronai's  day,  the  general  custom  was  for  the 

1  Miiller,  Handschrifttiche  Jehudai  Gaon  zugewiesene  Lehrsutse,  10.     Though 
Rabbi  Jehudai  was  a  Gaon  of  Sura,  by  education  he  was  a  Pumbeditan. 
Therefore  it  is  not  extraordinary  for  him  to  use  the  expression  0122  ~p  ijn: 
N11D31  in  his  Responsum.      It  is  interesting  that  opposition  to  the  use 
of  prayer-books  should  prevail  as  late  as  the  time  of  Rabbi  Ephraim, 
as  appears  from  his  remark  in  Waic,  12.     The  identity  of  this  Rabbi 
Ephraim  cannot  be  established  with  certainty.     He  is  probably  the  pupil 
of  Alfasi,  and  not  the  Rabbi  Ephraim  of  Bonn  who  lived  a   century 
later.     Buber,  in  his  list  of  authors'  names  for  brTatD,  attributes  all  the 
passages  in  the  book  to  the  former  Rabbi  Ephraim,  but  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  Rabbi  Ephraim  in  33  is  the  German  Rabbi  Ephraim, 
as  his  correspondent  is  the  German  Rabbi  Joel.     From  c^n  'IN,  I,  5!), 
bottom,  it  may  be  seen  that  no  prayer-books  were  taken  to  the  synagogue 
on  week-days,  though,   to  judge  from  the   words  of  the  author,   this 
was  not  to   be  ascribed   to  scruples  against  the  use  of   prayer-books. 
What  Ibn  Gajat  says,  in  vfv,  I,  62,  regarding  the  recitation  of  the  'Abodah 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  does  not  prove  that  in  his  time  it  was  not 
written  down ;  it  means  that  in  some  congregations  it  was  recited  only 
by  the  precentor,  while  the  worshippers  merely  listened.     Comp.  also 
brt"a«j,  58,  TOS  n'to  DTU"J,  which  also  presupposes  recitation  by  heart. 

2  Properly  ascribed  to  Natronai  in  n"c,  245,  and  n"«,  I,  18  a,  while  in 
I'IN,  42  a,  Rabbi  Jehudai  appears  as  the  author,  which  is  not  correct.   The 
prayer-books  mentioned  in  G.  S.,  p.  153,  belong  to  the  time  after  R.  Amram. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  12T 

Reader  to  use  a  prayer-book,  else  a  congregation  would 
not  have  been  in  doubt  as  to  the  fitness  of  a  blind  man, 
who  could  recite  the  prayers  only  by  heart,  for  the  office  of 
Reader. 

Of  course,  even  after  prayer-books  had  long  been  in  use 
in  Babylonia,  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  Geonim  to 
occupy  themselves  with  the  task  of  fixing  the  order  of  the 
prayers.  With  centuries  of  continuous  development  in 
Babylonia  the  conduct  of  the  divine  service  lay  in  the 
hands  of  men  who  would  do  the  right  thing  without  the 
necessity  of  special  instruction.  Moreover,  the  judges  and 
the  other  communal  officials  stood  under  the  direct  juris- 
diction of  the  Geonim,  who  would  be  sure  to  watch  over 
the  divine  service  and  its  conduct  in  accordance  with  the 
accepted  regulations.  Of  the  three  "  Orders  of  Prayer,"  it 
is  certain  that  two  were  compiled  at  the  request  of  con- 
gregations outside  of  Babylonia.  Rab  Amram  wrote  his 
for  the  Spanish  congregations1,  and  Rabbi  Saadia  his  for 
the  Egyptian2,  and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  Rabbi 
Hai,  too,  did  not  arrange  his  Seder  for  Babylonia3.  The 
countries  outside  of  Babylonia  lacked  both  historical  con- 
tinuity and  a  central  body  with  acknowledged  religious 
authority,  and  there  were  other  circumstances,  besides, 
standing  in  the  way  of  securing  an  established  order  of  the 
prayers.  In  spite  of  the  high  respect  in  which  the  Gaonate 
was  held,  the  Jews  of  Europe  and  elsewhere  were  not 
altogether  free  from  Palestinian  influence  4.  In  the  depart- 
ment of  liturgy  this  influence  was  most  marked,  for  even 
after  the  disappearance  of  her  Academies,  Palestine  still 
remained  the  home  of  the  Piyyut  and  the  prayers.  In 
point  of  fact  the  chief  work  done  by  the  Geonim  with 

1  Explicitly  stated  by  Ibn  Daud,  in  his  rrapn  'D,  and  demonstrable  from 
the  Seder  itself.  *  Comp.  below,  pp.  166-7. 

3  For  a  hypothesis  regarding  the  destination  of  Rabbi  Hai's  Seder  see 
below,  p.  175. 

4  Rabbi  Hai  knew  this  very  well,  as  is  shown  by  his  remark  in  Rabbi 
Isaiah   di   Trani  the  Elder,  rnao,  42.     Comp.  also  TT'C,  II,  55,  where 
Palestinian  customs  in  Spain  are  mentioned. 


122  THE    GEONIM 

regard  to  the  prayers  was  to  guard  the  main,  original 
prayers  zealously  against  additions,  and  even  so  they 
were  not  wholly  successful  in  warding  off  Palestinian 
influence1. 

Another  current  that  threatened  the  stability  of  the  order 
of  prayers  was  Karaism,  especially  its  feeble  offshoots, 
which  were  close  enough  to  Rabbinism  to  influence  rather 
than  repel  it.  The  Responsuin  by  Rabbi  Natronai,  in 
the  Seder  Rab  Amram,  37  b-^S  a,  is  an  interesting 
exemplification  of  Karaitic  influence  on  the  Rabbinical 
liturgy.  The  Haggadah  fragment  published  in  the  J.Q.  R., 
X,  42,  with  its  Rabbinic  and  Karaitic  elements,  shows 
that  this  influence  was  so  strong  as  to  leave  traces  in 
literature. 

Spain  and   Egypt  were  the   countries   in  which  these 

1  The  many  decisions  of  the  Geonim,  partly  contradictory  of  one 
another,  on  the  subject  of  insertions  in  the  'Amidah,  especially  on  the 
New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day  of  Atonement,  reveal  unmistakable  traces 
of  a  long  struggle  against  the  Piyyut,  ending  finally  in  a  compromise. 
In  general,  the  investigator  gains  the  impression  that  the  Geonim  of 
Sura  were  by  far  more  kindly  disposed  toward  the  Piyyut  than  those 
of  Pumbedita,  of  which  a  comparison  between  the  Responsum  of  Rabbi 
Natronai  in  j"rt,  50,  with  one  by  Rabbi  Hai  in  DTirn  'c,  252  (however, 
see  1.  c.,  288),  affords  a  characteristic  illustration.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  Weiss,  118,  succeeds  in  discovering  a  predilection  for  Kalir  in 
Rabbi  Natronai  from  his  Responsum.  Rabbi  Natronai  (in  j'n,  50)  names 
two  Piyyutim,  nv^a  yupa  and  mVira  yaFrryi,  with  disapproval.  The  second 
is  probably  identical  with  ppna  mbiru  by  Kalir  in  the  'Amidah  for  Purim 
in  the  German  ritual ;  and  even  the  first,  nvba  yup,  may  be  Kaliric,  as 
Kalir  seems  to  have  written  more  than  one  Piyyut  for  the  'Amidah  of 
Tisha'  be-Ab.  Comp.  Landshut,  rmiyrr  mnr,  s.  n.  As  for  the  influence 
exercised  by  Pumbeditan  tradition  on  Rabbi  Jehudai  (see  above,  p.  120, 
n.  i),  the  fact  is  significant  that  he  opposed  any  and  every  insertion  in  the 
'Amidah,  according  to  the  information  given  in  G.  S.,  on  p.  51.  If  the 
text  of  the  c"to,  Berakot,  34  a,  and  of  "?n"ac,  27,  is  correct,  the  opposition 
to  insertions  extended  even  to  yinc  jn  pi,  which,  however,  can  hardly 
be  so ;  it  seems  certain  that  it  is  an  insertion  made  in  Talmudic  times. 
As  for  Egyptian  conditions,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  from  rather  early 
until  comparatively  recent  times,  both  Palestinian  and  Babylonian 
synagogues  flourished  in  Egypt,  comp.  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  n,  564  ;  XIX,  460, 
Benjamin  of  Tudela,  Itinerary,  pp.  90-1,  ed.  Griinhut ;  Neubauer-Cowley, 
Catalogue,  238,  no.  16  ;  and  Poznanski,  Z.  H.  B.,  X,  145. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  123 

currents  were  distinctly  noticeable l,  and  they  are  the 
countries  whence  requests  came  to  the  Geonim  regarding 
the  order  of  the  prayers. 

THE  LITURGICAL  PART  OF  THE  SEDER  RAB  AMRAM. 

Exclusive  of  small  sections  of  the  prayer-book,  the  Seder 
Rab  Amram  is  probably  the  first  Order  of  Prayers  issuing 
from  the  hand  of  a  Gaon.  His  predecessor,  Rabbi  Natronai, 
sent  to  Spain  a  brief  arrangement  of  the  "hundred  bene- 
dictions," published  for  the  first  time  in  G.  S.,  p.  119  et  seq.2 
It  is  possible,  too,  that  the  Gaon  Kohen-Zedek,  officiating 
shortly  before  Rabbi  Natronai,  put  a  Passover  Haggadah 
together  3.  But  of  a  complete  Order  of  Prayers  not  a  trace 
can  be  found  until  we  reach  Rab  Amram. 

In  its  quality  as  the  first  Seder  arranged  by  an  acknow- 
ledged authority,  Rab  Amram' s  enjoyed  greater  consideration 
than  any  work  of  the  Geonic  period.  While  of  Rabbi 
Saadia's  Seder  only  a  few  quotations  were  preserved,  and 
they  by  specialists  in  liturgy,  so  that  it  was  until  recently 
considered  a  lost  book,  there  is  scarcely  any  work  of 
importance  belonging  to  the  centuries  between  the  years 
iooo4  and  1500  that  does  not  contain  a  reference  to  Rab 

1  The  remark  by  Rabbi  Samuel  ha-Nagid  in  avyn  'D,  267,  throws  an 
interesting  light  upon  the  masked  Karaism  infecting  Spain  during  the 
Geonic  time.  The  Gaon  Rabbi  Natronai  learnt  about  'Anan's  book 
of  laws  from  the  Spanish  Rabbi  Eleazar  Alluf,  y*-c,  38  a. 

3  Rabbi  Natronai   seems   to  have   arranged   also   regulations  for  the 
readings  from  the  Pentateuch ;  comp.  y"-\D,  29  a,  and  3*n ,  ed.  Hildesheimer, 
623. 

s  Comp.  TT'C,  II,  100,  Marx,  Uniersuchungen,  &c.,  5-6,  and  Muller  in 
Handschrifttiche  Jehudal  Gaon  zugewiesene  Lehrsdise,  17,  where  may  also  be 
found  the  information  obtained  from  Derenbourg,  to  which  he  refers  in 
Mafteait,  83.  Harkavy's  view,  in  Saadia,  144,  deserves  to  be  mentioned  as 
a  curiosity  of  literature.  He  says  that  pis  jrta  and  ncta  'i,  in  c'xrr,  1.  c., 
are  one  and  the  same  person,  that  is,  Ibn  Gajat  is  supposed  to  have 
called  one  person  by  two  names  in  the  same  sentence  !  The  inn  nc'NO  'CTO 
mentioned  by  Rabbi  Saadia  may  perhaps  be  the  maternal  grandfather  of 
Rabbi  Sherira,  'isro  (comp.  above,  p.  12,  last  line),  of  which  'cno  is  a 
variant  form. 

4  Rabbi  Sherira,  in  "n'ac,  in,  is  the  oldest  author  who  cites  the  z"~c. 


124  THE    GEONIM 

Amram's  Seder.  Though  it  was  prepared  for  the  Spanish 
Jews  primarily,  it  was  used  as  extensively  by  the  Franco- 
German  authorities  as  by  the  Hispano-Proven9al.  From 
Rashi  down  to  the  anonymous  fifteenth- century  commen- 
tator1 of  the  German  prayer-book,  published  at  Trino,  1525, 
the  Franco-German  scholars  do  not  leave  off  appealing  to 
the  authority  of  Rab  Amram.  And  the  Hispano-Proven9al 
scholars  of  the  same  period,  from  Rabbi  Isaac  Ibn  Gajat 
down  to  Abudraham,  likewise  form  an  unbroken  chain  of 
authors  deriving  their  information  from  the  Seder  Rab 
Amram.  Besides,  it  is  probably  the  only  Geonic  work  of 
which  four  complete  MSS.2  have  been  preserved.  Of 
Rabbi  Saadia's  we  have  a  single  one,  and  that  imperfect. 

This  same  circumstance,  that  Rab  Amram's  Seder  was 
resorted  to  so  zealously,  carries  with  it  a  drawback.  Due 
to  it,  we  shall  probably  never  know  its  true,  original  form. 
It  was  used  until  it  was  used  up.  To  realise  the  whole 
extent  of  the  problem  thus  forced  upon  us,  we  must 
remember  that  the  Seder  contains  more  than  the  prayers. 
They  are  accompanied  by  a  continuous  chain  of  important 
Halakot  relating  to  the  prayers.  The  introductory  sentences 
of  the  Seder,  the  words  of  Rab  Amram  to  Rabbi  Isaac  ben 
Simon,  the  addressee  of  the  Seder  Responsum,  mention 
nothing  about  this  Halakic  exposition.  His  words  are : 
"  And  relative  to  the  prayers  and  benedictions  for  the 
whole  year,  concerning  which  thou  didst  make  a  request 
of  me,  it  seemeth  good  to  me  to  arrange  them  in  order  and 
send  them  to  thee  as  they  have  been  transmitted  to  us,  the 
order  of  the  Tannaim  and  Amoraiin." 

1  The  y"iD  is  quoted  in  the  commentary  on  the  Haggadah,  with  the 
words    anas  an  'nno  nspa.     Also  in  the  brief  observations  preceding  the 
prayers  in  tfxm  nnno  the  Seder  is  quoted.     It  ceased  to  be  quoted  only 
after  printed  prayer-books  became  common. 

2  On   the  MSS.  com  p.   Marx,    Untersuchungen   zum   Seder  des  Goon  Rab 
Amram,  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  1908,  which  reached  me  while  this  book 
was  going  through  the  press.     In  the  following  pages  MS.  S  stands  for 
the  Sulzberger  MS.  in  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America,  and 
MS.  O  for  the  Oxford  MS. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  125 

An  argumentum  ex  silentio  like  this  may  not  be  pressed 
too  hard.  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  the  Spanish  congrega- 
tions did  not  ask  the  Gaon  simply  for  a  prayer-book. 
That  they  could  have  procured  from  any  Babylonian  Jew. 
They  must  have  desired  the  valuable  explanations  and 
notes  accompanying  the  prayers,  and  the  Gaon,  in  his 
introduction,  briefly  spoke  of  the  order  of  the  prayers, 
which  in  his  mind  included  the  Halakot  appertaining  to 
them.  Indeed,  the  probability  is  that  the  Spanish  Jews 
laid  more  stress  upon  the  Halakot  than  upon  the  prayers. 
On  the  whole,  and  certainly  in  all  that  was  essential,  the 
latter  were  settled  everywhere  according  to  local  custom, 
which  had  too  strong  a  hold  upon  the  congregations 
to  permit  us  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  they  would 
have  given  their  peculiarities  up  for  others,  though  the 
others  had  the  high  sanction  of  the  Geonim.  Furthermore, 
the  quotations  in  the  oldest  authors  that  mention  the  Seder, 
Rabbi  Sherira,  Ibn  Gajat,  Rashi,  and  Albargeloni,  are  from 
the  Halakic  portions.  This  leaves  no  room  for  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  Seder  received  its  dual  form  from  Rab  Amram 
himself.  The  introductory  words  quoted  above  also  show 
how  untenable  is  the  tradition  reported  by  Azulai,  in  his 
Wa'ad  la-Hakamim,  s.v.,  which  makes  the  Seder  the  work 
of  the  school  of  Rab  Amram.  This  tradition  probably 
originated  in  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Rab  Amram  is 
mentioned  several  times  in  the  Halakic  portions  of  the 
Seder,  as  are  also  decisions  by  authorities  who  lived  after 
him,  Rabbi  Nahshon,  Rabbi  Zemah,  Rabbi  Nathan,  and 
Rabbi  Saadia1.  If  these  decisions  were  the  only  alien 
elements  in  the  Seder,  we  should  wonder  that  a  book  so 
much  used  had  come  down  to  us  in  a  comparatively 
unchanged  form,  rather  than  that  it  had  received  such 
additions.  In  fact,  a  critical  examination  of  the  Sedtr 
shows  that  it  was  abused  to  an  extreme  degree,  and  the 

1  In  MS.  O  Rabbenu  Hai  is  also  quoted.     Comp.  Marx,  Untersvchungen, 
&c.,  ii. 


126  THE    GEONIM 

portion  that  suffered  most  is  the  Order  of  Prayers  specifi- 
cally, rather  than  the  Halakic  explanations.  In  the 
following  paragraphs  proofs  will  be  adduced — and  they 
might  be  increased  tenfold — to  show  that  our  present 
Seder  Rob  Amram  has  preserved  a  minimum  of  its  original 
form,  so  far  as  the  prayers  themselves  go. 

The  concluding  sentence  of  notw  Tita  in  our  Seder  begins 
3  |HN,  while  Abudraham1,  27,  gives  DW2n  i?3  pan 
finx  as  the  reading  he  finds  in  his  copy,  at  the 
same  time  calling  'our  form  of  it  just  quoted  the  custom 
of  the  "  common  people." 

The  formula  of  minn  nana,  as  it  now  appears  in  the  Seder, 
assuredly  did  not  originate  with  Rab  Amram.  As  is  shown 
by  the  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Natronai,  G.  S.,  p.  116,  line  3, 
the  expression  minn  jnu  was  used  in  Babylonia,  instead  of 
the  .  , ,  notan  of  the  Seder.  Rabbi  Natronai's  wording  is 
corroborated  by  3"n,  ed.  Hildesheimer,  8.  Rabbi  Abraham 
ben  Nathan  states,  in  his  Manhig,  9,  that  minn  fnu  was 
used  at  his  time  in  Spain,  while  a  century  later,  as  we  can 
see  from  Abudraham,  30,  the  form  of  the  Franco-German 
Academies  was  in  vogue,  which  is  the  form  that  agrees 
with  our  printed  text  of  the  Seder.  The  version  used  by 
Rabbi  Aaron  of  Lunel  showed  still  another  deviation  from 
the  original  Seder  Rab  Amram.  It  had  mm  nana  piDyi>, 
instead  of  mm  nan  by,  also  to  be  ascribed  to  Franco-German 
influence  2. 

The  priestly  blessing  after  minn  nana  can  be  traced  back 
at  least  to  the  time  of  Rabbi  Jacob,  the  author  of  the  Tur ; 
he  had  it  in  his  copy  of  the  Seder.  But  the  Responsum  of 
Rabbi  Natronai  shows  that  it  was  not  used  in  Babylonia. 
In  the  introductory  note  to  the  Responsum,  in  G.  £,  p.  no, 
it  is  demonstrated  that  it  was  a  French  custom,  and,  there- 
fore, is  naturally  missing  in  S  and  0. 

1  I  quote  from  the  edition  Warsaw,  1877. 

2  Comp.  one,  41  c,  where  pcr>  is  denominated  a  Minhag  of  Lorraine, 
as  compared  with  the  custom  prevailing  in  Spain.     MS.  S  has  correctly 
rrvm  jm:.     Comp.  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.,  7. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  127 

Our  text,  2  a,  calls  for  the  recital  of  the  verses  on  the 
Sabbath  sacrifices,  while  the  Manhig,  9,  indicates  that  the 
Seder  provides  for  them  also  on  the  New  Moon  Day. 

Abudraham,  37,  accuses  the  "  common  people  "  of  having 
twisted  niTDDI  rnrQBQ,  as  correctly  given  in  the  Seder,  into 
wcm  vnaeo,  but  our  text  agrees  with  the  wording  used  by 
the  people. 

The  nw  in  our  text  of  the  Seder  forms  the  conclusion 
of  the  mo^n  'plDB,  but  we  have  a  trustworthy  tradition 
(D'nyn  'D),  249,  that  the  recital  of  the  rrvi?  was  unknown  in 
the  principal  sj'nagogues  in  Babylonia  as  late  as  the  time 
of  Rabbi  Natronai,  the  immediate  predecessor  of  Rab  Amram . 
From  another  source,  R.  &  J.,  XXIII,  234,  we  learn  that  the 
first  one  to  introduce  the  nTt?  in  Germany  was  Rabbi  Moses 
ben  Rabbi  Kalonymos.  All  this  would  seem  to  point  to  the 
inevitable  conclusion  that  the  fiTt?  in  the  Seder  Rab  Amram 
is  not  one  of  its  original  elements,  a  conclusion  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that,  as  is  patent  from  the  Manhig,  10  b,  the 
m^e>  did  not  appear  in  the  copy  of  the  Seder  used  by  the 
author  of  the  Manhig l.  Indeed,  the  printed  texts  them- 
selves betray  that  we  owe  the  nw  to  a  copyist.  On 
page  27  b,  where  the  Sabbath  prayers  are  recorded,  the 
conclusion  of  the  moTi  V^DS  is  properly  given  as  ...  D»95llOI. 

The  omission  of  the  passage  Bnn  -IIK  at  the  end  of  the 
first  Shema*  Benediction  cannot  but  be  a  correction  made 
in  accordance  with  the  Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia.  Rabbi 
Nahshon,  the  successor  of  Rabbi  Ami-am,  quotes  this  passage 
incidentally  (:Tn,  ed.  Hildesheimer,  224),  showing  that  he 
was  not  aware  of  any  objection  thereto,  and  it  was  recited 
in  Babylonian  synagogues  still  later,  in  the  time  of  Rabbi 
Sherira  (!>n*at!>,  13).  There  is  even  an  explicit  statement 
that  Rabbi  Saadia  could  not  make  his  opinion  prevail  in 
Sura  itself.  This  brings  out  an  interesting  point  in  the 
history  of  the  liturgy.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  dwell 

1  The  MSS.  have  preserved  the  original  text  here  only  in  part.  See 
below,  p.  144.  Com  p.  also  n*M,  I,  6c,  and  MaJisor  Romania,  under  rone* 
in  the  Sabbath  Morning  Prayer. 


128  THE    GEONIM 

upon  it  here.  Originally  the  prayers  connected  with  the 
Shema^  contained  no  reference  to  the  future,  the  Messianic, 
redemption.  Zion.  the  Temple,  and  the  restoration  of  the 
house  of  David  were  prayed  for  only  in  the  'Amidah. 
Gradually  the  three  benedictions  preceding  the  'Amidah 
were  subjected  to  insertions  dealing  with  the  redemption. 
As  we  have  seen,  Rabbi  Saadia  protested,  though  vainly, 
against  the  presence  of  Knn  "UK  in  the  first  Skema  Bene- 
diction. His  objection  was  that  the  Benediction  in  question 
was  intended  to  be  a  prayer  in  praise  of  the  majesty  of  God 
revealed  in  the  sun  and  the  light  of  day,  and  a  prayer  for 
redemption  could  not  be  attached  to  it  fittingly.  The 
Benediction  following  the  Shema  was  originally  a  prayer 
of  thanksgiving  for  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  as  is 
demonstrated  in  0.  S.,  p.  89,  the  insertions  bearing  upon  the 
future  redemption  go  back  to  the  Geonic  time,  though  they 
established  themselves  in  opposition  to  Geonic  authority, 
which  was  on  the  whole  directed  to  the  end  of  preserving 
the  main,  central  prayers  intact  and  unchanged.  In  this 
case,  it  seems  their  authority  was  here  and  there  exercised 
unsuccessfully.  The  second  of  the  Shema  Benedictions,  the 
ranx  or  D^iy  rons,  also  contains  a  reference  to  the  future 
redemption  which  must  be  very  old,  seeing  that  no  echo 
of  any  opposition  to  it  has  come  down  to  us.  The  old 
dispute  about  the  opening  words  of  the  Ahabah  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  insertion  of  a  reference  to  the  future 
redemption l. 

1  The  supposition  put  forward  by  Dr.  Elbogen,  Studitn  zur  Geschichte  des 
judischen  Gottesdienstes,  27,  that  the  discussion  on  the  opening  words  of 
the  second  Shema'  Benediction  actually  turned  upon  the  insertion  of  the 
Geullah,  seems  to  me  untenable.  If  his  supposition  were  correct,  what 
explanation  could  be  offered  for  the  fact  that  all  the  liturgies  preserved 
until  our  time,  the  Ashkenazim,  Sephardim,  Italiani,  Romania,  all  have 
the  Geullah  in  this  Benediction,  though  they  differ  as  to  the  initial 
words.  Furthermore,  the  Talmud  itself,  Berakot,  ub,  records  a  difference 
of  opinion  regarding  the  introductory  words,  but  it  is  hardly  possible 
that  the  insertion  of  the  Geullah  could  go  back  to  the  Talmudic  time. 
Dr.  Elbogen  considers  it  inconceivable  that  so  petty  a  variation  as 
between  nn  nan«  and  cVw  runs  should  have  caused  so  much  talk  and 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  129 

The  fact  that  the  shortened  Yozer  of  the  printed  text 
is  missing  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Seder,  would  by  itself 
suggest  the  conjecture  that  it  is  derived  from  the  Seder 
of  Rabbi  Saadia,  even  if  the  MS.  of  the  latter  did  not 
contain  it,  and  so  make  it  a  certainty.  But  the  view 
that  this  Yozer,  without  a  Keduahah,  is  the  Palestinian, 
that  is,  the  older  form,  is  decidedly  incorrect.  The  words 
of  the  Tosefta,  Berakot,  I,  9,  'P'p'p  "paon  Dy  ruiy  n"m,  leave 
no  room  for  doubt — Yozer  contained  the  Kedushah  as 
early  as  the  Tannaitic  period,  and  the  use  of  "paon  in  the 
Tosefta  passage  precludes  the  possibility  of  making  the 
reference  apply  to  the  Keduskah  of  the  'Araidah l.  "paon 
can  only  mean  the  recital  of  the  Shema  Benediction.  The 
''praying"  of  the  'Amidah  is  always  called  b^ancn.  The 
reasons  given  by  Dr.  Elbogen  (Studien  zur  Geschichte  den 
judischen  Gottesdienstes,  20)  for  supposing  that  the  shorter 
form  of  the  Yozer  was  the  original  form,  are  inadequate. 
He  says  that  an  analogous  case  is  not  known,  of  curtailing 
a  prayer  once  used  in  a  long  form.  In  reality  there  are 
at  least  three  parallel  cases :  wan,  the  shortened  'Amidah 
for  private  prayer,  originating  in  the  Tannaitic  time ;  the 
shortened  'Am&dah  for  the  congregation,  originating  in 
the  early  Geonic  time,  known  to  us  from  the  Eshkol  (I,  55) 
by  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  Isaac,  who  quotes  it  from  Geonic 
literature ;  and  the  shortened  grace  after  meals,  which  we 
have  in  three  different  forms,  the  one  from  the  Talmudic 
time  arranged  for  working  men,  and  two  later  forms  2  for 

discussion.  From  the  ancients  he  might  have  invited  the  reply  p  cs 
O3Q  Kin.  In  their  sight  it  was  not  a  petty  difference,  not  any  more 
insignificant  than  the  much-mooted  question  whether  1312  should  or 
should  not  close  with  •prsrr,  about  which  we  have  varying  opinions, 
beginning  with  the  time  of  Rabbi  Akiba  (Berakot,  III,  7),  down  to  the 
last  of  the  Amoraim  (ibid.,  50  a  ;  Yer.  Berakot,  VII,  n  c). 

1  The  correct  interpretation  of  the  Tosefta  passage  may  be  found  with 
so  early  an  authority  as  rp'iNi,  Berakot,  8  a. 

1  Besides  the  mspa  o"na  of  the  Polish  Rabbis  of  the  sixteenth  century 
handed  down  by  Rabbi  Joel  Sirkes,  in  win  rva,  on  n*N,  192,  there  is 
a  much  older  shortened  form  of  the  grace  after  meals  in  'n  'mx,  I,  36  d, 
by  Rabbi  Aaron  of  Lunel. 

I  K 


130  THE    GEONIM 

various  emergencies.  The  shortening  of  the  Jiton  n312  is 
particularly  interesting,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  prayer 
was  held  to  be  Biblical,  while  all  the  others  were  based 
on  Rabbinical  authority  only. 

The  reason  for  the  abridgment  of  the  Yozer  is  plainly 
stated — an  individual  may  not  recite  the  Kedushah.  Dr. 
Elbogen  maintains  that  this  prohibition  is  a  fiction  pure 
and  simple,  based  upon  a  misunderstood  passage  in  the 
Talmud.  Nevertheless,  many  of  the  Geonim,  as  well  as 
most  of  the  old  authorities  down  to  and  including  Mai- 
monides,  were  actually  of  the  opinion  that  the  reciting 
of  the  Kedushah  by  a  single  person  was  forbidden 1,  and 
from  their  point  of  view,  whether  correct  or  not,  they 
were  compelled  to  formulate  an  abridged  Yozer.  A  dif- 
ference of  opinion  existed  only  regarding  the  extent  to 
which  it  should  be  curtailed.  Rabbi  Saadia,  following 
the  lead  of  the  Talmud  on  uj'an,  retained  only  the  frame- 
work of  the  Yozer,  he  omitted  the  numerous  embellish- 
ments attached  to  it,  while  others  of  the  Geonim  left  the 
Yozer  itself  as  unabridged  as  possible,  even  when  it  was 
intended  for  private  devotion,  and  omitted  only  the 
Kedushah2.  I  would  venture  a  step  further,  and  would 
assert  that  the  Kedushah  of  the  Yozer  is  the  oldest  form 
in  which  this  prayer  appears,  the  Kedushah  in  the  'Amidah 
being  specifically  Babylonian3.  This  would  be  the  only 

1  The  views  of  the  Creonim  regarding  this  point  are  collocated  by 
Dr.  Biichler,  in  JR.  K  J.,  LIII,  220-30.    Maimonides,  it  is  alleged,  changed 
his  view ;  comp.  Caro,  Bet  Yosef,  n"«,  59.     The  long  discussions  on  this 
point  in  the  old  authorities  leave  the  impression  that  the  old  view,  based 
upon  the  Talmud  exclusively,  was  opposed  to  the  recital  of  the  Yozer 
Kedushah  by  the  individual,  and  the  other  view  came  into  vogue  only 
through  DnciD  'co. 

2  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  the  olden  times  an  individual 
absented  himself  from  the  lias  nbcrt  only  if  he  had  no  time  or  if  there 
was  sickness,  hence  the  aim  to  make  the  TIT  nbcn  as  short  as  possible. 

3  In  the  Midrash  ha-Gadol,  1, 278,  the  following  sentence  is  quoted  from 
an  unknown  Midrash :  ratzj  'V%  raw  'Vto  rwnp  ">  I'JN,  that  is,  four 
Kedushot  for  each    day,  viz. :    (i)  isv  'ip ;  (a)  mrrcj  to    rrro»   'ip :  (3) 

'ip ;  and  (4)  nrr:n  to  rrroy  '•»?,  to  which  are  added  on  the  Sabbath 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  131 

way  of  making  clear  why  the  Palestinians,  as  late  as  the 
year  800,  continued  to  offer  strenuous  opposition  to  the 
' Atnidah- Kedushah  on  week-days,  which,  as  appears  from 
G.  S.,  p.  48  et  seq.,  was  forced  upon  them  by  the  Babylonians. 
If  it    had    been    an   old    constituent    part  of  the    daily 
service,  what   other  reason  would  suffice  to  explain  the 
omission  of  the  holiest  part  of  the  'Amidah  in  Palestine? 
It  is  even   questionable  whether  the  ' Amidak-Keduskah 
was   known   to  the  Babylonian  Talmud  itself.     Berakot, 
21  b,  is  not  decisive.     All  that  may  properly  be  inferred 
from  this  passage  is  that  in  Babylonia,  and  perhaps  also 
in  Palestine,  the  third  Benediction  of  the  'Amidah  con- 
tained the  trisagion,  though  not  necessarily  as  an  inde- 
pendent paragraph,  as  we  have  it  in  our  Kedushah,  but 
as  an  integral  part  of  the  Benediction,  somewhat  like  this  : 
^D  N^D  nisas  *"*  em?  emp  en?  3VD3  i»B>  Niui  nn«  tpnp1 
11133  p"lNn,  corresponding  to  the  closing  sentence  of  the  third 
Benediction  for  nJBM  BWI  and  11S3,  on  which  days,  in  view 
of  their  judicial   character,  the   verse  Isa.  v.  16  is  used 
instead  of  Isa.  vi.  3.     This  would  serve  also  to  make  clear 
Rabbi  Huna's  point  of  view.     As  the  passage  in  Berakot 
informs  us,  he  had  no  objection  to  an  individual's  reciting 
the  'Amidah-Kedushah  in  his   private   devotion.     Rabbi 
Huna  subscribed  to  the  accepted  principle  :  nB>np3B>  131  ^3 
1>/D  mriQ3  NiT  N!?,  but  he   saw  in   the  ' Amidah-fedushah 
only  a  part  of  the  third  Benediction,  the  DtJ>n  nsjmp,  in- 
tended for  private  as  well  as  public  worship.   Furthermore, 
it   should    be    taken   into    consideration  that    the   MSS. 
and  the  old  authors  did  not  have  nemp  in  this  Talmud 
passage  as  in  our  text,  but  tJmp.     Apparently,  then,  the 

the  Huso/  Kedushah  and  the  vmcn  'ip  at  the  going  out  of  the  Sabbath. 
Accordingly,  this  Midrash  did  know  the  NTIDI  'ip  for  the  Sabbath  After- 
noon Service,  which,  as  is  shown  in  G.  S.,  pp.  288-9,  is  °f  Babylonian 
origin.  The  Targum  Sheni,  V,  i,  has  an  interesting  passage  bearing  on 
the  subject :  pot  rtn  MOV  baa  snip  ....  !»r«r.  At  the  time  of  this 
Targum,  then,  the  NVIDT  'ip  formed  no  part  of  the  regular  public  service. 
1  It  is  well  known  that  the  formula  nn«  cnp  was  the  old  ocn  ncnp, 
and  not  »np  nrw. 

K  2 


132  THE    GEONIM 

subject  dealt  with  is  not  the  Kedushah,  but  the   words 
'P'p  BT7p  in  the  third  Benediction. 

The  'Amidah- Kedushah  received  sanction  and  character 
as  an  independent  prayer  only  under  the  influence  of  the 
Babylonian  mystics.  The  conception  conveyed  by  it  is 
the  mystical  idea  that  God  receives  his  "crown"  from 
Israel  as  from  the  heavenly  host,  when  they  adore  him 
by  means  of  the  trisagion 1.  The  old  Kedushah  contained 
nothing  of  this  notion.  It  merely  ascribed  holiness  to  God 
in  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah.  It  was  against  this 
mystical  idea  that  the  Palestinians  during  Geonic  times 
contended  inch  by  inch.  First  the  Babylonians  living  in 
Palestine  achieved  their  purpose  of  inserting  the  Kedushah 
in  the  Sabbath  service,  and  this  was  far  from  being  the 
only  Paitanic  addition  made  to  it2.  In  the  end,  the 
Babylonian  JFedushah  slipped  into  the  week-day  service 
as  well.  In  Geonic  times  the  Babylonian  Jews  living  in 
Palestine  played  pretty  much  the  same  part  as  the  Polish 
Jews  in  Germany  during  the  last  three  centuries.  Fault 
was  found  with  them  on  all  sides,  but  after  all  they  were 
"the  scholars,"  and,  do  what  one  would,  their  authority 
compelled  recognition.  Now,  as  the  ' Amidah-Kedushah 
is  the  product  of  the  Babylonian  mystics,  so  the  Yozer- 
Kedushah  goes  back  to  the  Palestinian  mystics.  Josephus 
(de  hello  Judaico,  II,  8,  5)  says  of  the  Essenes :  "  They 
speak  not  a  word  about  profane  things  before  the  rising 
of  the  sun.  but  they  offer  up  the  prayers  they  have  received 
from  their  fathers  facing  the  sun  as  if  praying  for  its 
rising."  Mutatis  mutandis,  a  Yozer  is  nothing  but  the 
prayer  at  sunrise,  and  if  the  liturgy  preserved  for  us  had 
not  had  a  Kedushah  in  the  Yozer,  we  should  logically  have 
been  compelled  to  assume  its  sometime  existence  there, 

1  Comp.  Bloch's  essay  on  the  nwra  mv  in  Monatsschrift,  XXXVII,  305. 
Our  author  goes  too  far  when  he  assigns  the  origin  of  the  Yozer-Kedushah 
to  the  Babylonian  mystics. 

2  Albargeloni,  in  OTiyn  'c,   251,  expresses'  'his   decided   opposition   to 
-|nv  ton.     Of  course,  his  protest  against  this  old  insertion  was  vain. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  133 

In  the  whole  of  the  prophetical  literature  there  is  nothing 
suitable  for  a  Yozer  except  the  glorification  of  the  Lord 
by  the  celestial  host,  described  by  Isaiah,  which  we  call 
the  Kedushah 1. 

Furthermore,  the  difference  between  the  Palestinian  and 
the  Babylonian  Kedushah  calls  for  consideration.  The 
Yozer-Kedushalt  like  the  Palestinian  'Amidah-tfedushah 
has  nothing  of  the  "crowning  of  God,"  which  is  so  dis- 
tinctly conveyed  by  the  Babylonian  'Amidah-Kedushah. 
When  the  Palestinians,  acting  under  compulsion  by  the 
Babylonians,  accepted  the ' Amidaft- Kedushah,  they  divested 
it  of  this  mystical  concept,  and  fitted  it  into  the  Yozer- 
Kedusfiah — additional  evidence  for  the  independence  of 
the  two  Kedueliot,  for  while  the  Babylonians  know  only 
the  form  with  "1D3  for  the  'Amidah-Kedushah,  no  trace 
of  the  "  crown  "  can  be  discovered  in  the  Yozer-KedusJmh, 
as,  furthermore,  the  Palestinians  have  only  Bnpi  or  IB'HpJ 
for  the  'Amidah-Keduakah  2. 

The  above  exposition  can  lead  to  but  one  conclusion, 
that  the  Yozer-Kedushah  is  pre-Geonic  and  Palestinian, 
and  as  a  consequence  the  short  Yozer  in  the  Seder  is  exactly 
what  it  is  said  to  be,  an  abridgment  for  private  worship, 
and  not  the  original  Palestinian  Yozer.  It  is  nevertheless 
indisputable  that  the  short  Yozer  is  not  properly  to  be 
accounted  an  original  constituent  of  the  Seder  Rob  Amrartt,. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  taken  from  the  Seder 

1  Rapoport,  Biography  of  Kalir,  note  20,  gives  so  convincing  a  statement 
of   the    connexion  between   the    Yozer  and  the   Essenes   that   nothing 
remains  to  be  added  to  his  words.     Dr.  Hoffmann,  in  the  Introduction 
to  the  cx:n  cvro,  goes  so  far  as  to  conjecture  that  the  Essenes  were 
called  c'D'in  after  mn  "  the  sun,"  but  this  explanation  of  the  expression 
C'C'in  rfoo  seems  to  me  very  forced.     C'^nn  would  rather  appear  to  be 
nothing  more  than  a  variation  of  D'rnn.     Then  c'D'in  .-ran  would  be  u 
"  Collection  of  Proverbs." 

2  Comp.  G.  S.,  pp.  48-9,  where  the  vo  formula  is  dealt  with  in  detail. 
The  statement  made  there  that  the  Italian  ritual,  before  being  influenced 
by  the  Kabbalah,  knew  only  vo,  is  corroborated  by  the  words  in  bn'ic, 
13  :  1.12  -raTJjmnjnrrcac.   Comp.  also  Berliner  Hoffmann,  Magazin,  Hebrew 
supplement  31:2  ISIN,  1886,  p.  1 1 ,  where  vo  is  given  as  the  Kedushah,  -TS  3n:c. 


134  THE 

of  Rabbi  Saadia.  Not  only  is  it  missing  in  the  MSS, 
of  the  Seder  Rob  Amram,  but  we  know  from  Bondi, 
Siddur  des  Rabbi  Saadia,  13,  that  this  short  Yozer  i& 
actually  in  the  MS.  of  the  Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia l. 

Whether  the  formula  nil  ranx  for  the  second  Shema* 
Benediction  is  really  traceable  to  Rab  Amram,  is  question- 
able, for  as  late  as  the  time  of  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi 
Hai  it  began  with  D^y  nanx  everywhere  in  Babylonia  except 
in  the  synagogue  of  Kohen-Zedek,  and  there  is  no  likeli- 
hood that  Rabbi  Amram  would  have  given  a  decision 
deviating  from  the  universal  Babylonian  custom.  It  seems 
that  we  have  again  met  with  a  !£  correction "  made  for 
the  purpose  of  bringing  the  Seder  into  agreement  with  the 
views  of  the  Franco-German  authorities  2. 

The  addition  of  tan  TTi»  for  the  summer  is  mentioned 
by  Rabbi  Abraham,  in  the  Manhig,  16,  as  a  Provenfal 
custom,  not  known  to  the  Seder  Rab  Amram ;  yet  in  our 
text  of  the  Seder  it  is  given  3. 

Abudraham,  67,  speaks  with  disapprobation  of  the 
"  common  people  "  who  say  N^y  *t&J&1  in  the  Ninon  N^nnp, 
the  only  correct  form  being  IPDfa?  D^yn,  as  the  Seder  Rab 
Amram  has  it.  Again  our  text  agrees  with  the  supposed 
preference  of  the  common  people. 

The  addition  to  the  Geullah  in  the  Evening  Service  in 
our  text  of  the  Seder,  1 9  a,  is  most  suggestive.  Rab  Amram 
(6  b)  is  peremptory  in  opposing  the  insertion  of  the  idea 
of  the  future  redemption  in  the  Geullah  of  the  Morning 
Service.  It  is  absolutely  inconceivable  that  he  would  have 

1  From  V«?r,  I,  52,  it  may  even  be  gathered  that  the  short  Yozer  in  the 
5*iD  read  other  than  in  our  text. 

a  It  is  true,  so  early  an  authority  as  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Hanina,  the 
disciple  of  Rabbi  Jehudai,  expressed  himself  in  favour  of  nan  runx ; 
comp.  a"n,  125.  But  the  statement  .  . .  -|^«i  j»an  i:arm  is  contradicted 
by  Rabbi  Sherira.  It  may  be  that  the  Minhag  was  changed  in  the  later 
time  of  which  Rab  Sherira  speaks. 

3  Accordingly,  Rapoport  (Kalir,  note  33)  is  not  right  when  he  says 
that  Kalir  and  the  Sephardim  agree  in  having  Va  for  the  summer,  as  the 
old  Sephardic  ritual  did  not  have  it. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  135 

been  so  inconsistent  as  to  permit  its  insertion  in  the  Evening 
Service.  Moreover,  from  the  Responsum  by  Sar  Shalom 
given  in  G.  S.,  p.  91,  it  appears  that  the  insertion  originally 
had  its  place  in  the  Geullah  for  the  morning.  It  is  there- 
fore probable  that  it  occupied  this  place  in  the  copy  upon 
which  our  text  is  based,  as,  indeed,  the  amplified  Geullah 
was  most  generally  identified  with  the  Morning  Service  *. 
But  the  copyist  of  the  Seder  could  not  stultify  himself 
to  the  extent  of  giving  the  expanded  Geullah  side  by  side 
with  the  Gaon's  disapproval  of  it.  Hence  the  insertion 
disappeared  from  the  Morning  Prayer,  while,  in  the 
Evening  Prayer,  there  being  no  remark  of  Rab  Amram's 
to  deter  them,  the  copyists  followed  the  custom  with 
which  they  were  familiar  in  the  Geullah  for  the  evening. 
Now,  as  neither  the  Sephardim  nor  the  Ashkenazim  in 
later  times  had  an  amplified  evening  Geullah,  the  inference 
is  that  the  model  for  our  text  of  the  Seder  must  have  been 
an  old  Spanish  prayer-book  containing  these  additions. 
As  for  their  origin,  the  Genizah  fragment  enables  us  to 
say  with  certainty  that  they  came  from  Palestine,  whence 
they  reached  also  the  Morning  Service  in  the  old  Orders 
of  Prayer  of  the  Ashkenazim  and  Sephardim,  from  which 
the  opposition  of  the  Geonim  did  not  succeed  in  removing 
them  entirely.  Hence  the  fact  that  the  insertion  in  the 
Geullah  is  missing  in  the  Sulzberger  MS.  of  the  Seder 
proves  nothing  with  regard  to  its  high  antiquity  as  com- 
pared with  the  printed  text.  It  belongs  to  a  time  in  which 
the  amplified  Geullah  was  no  longer  a  general  custom,  and 
the  copyists  of  the  Seder  therefore  had  no  occasion  to  put 
it  into  their  copies. 

For  the  endeavour  to  arrive  at  a  valuation  of  our  text, 
the  noon  hy  B^p,  i9b,  is  of  great  importance.  In  the 
Genizah  fragment  published  by  Professor  Schechter  in 
the  J.  Q.  R.,  X,  655,  there  is  a  Shema*  Benediction  before 
1313,  running  thus :  PQJ31  D^B>  33b  la^cnb  l"3pK  n*DN  ^N3 
nvsn.  Recently,  another  Genizah  fragment  was  reproduced 

1  Conap.  the  Genizah  fragment  in  R.  E.  J.,  LIU,  236. 


136  THE    GEONIM 

in  the  R.J&.J.,  LIII,  240-1,  by  Professor  LeVi,  and  it  con- 
tains a  Benediction  with  almost  absolutely  the  same 
wording.  The  accepted  opinion  is  that  this  Benediction 
was  unknown  hitherto,  until  the  publication  of  these  two 
fragments.  No  explanation  came  readily  to  hand  when 
and  why  this  special  Shema'  Benediction  was  added  to  the 
other  two  of  Tannaitic  origin.  Another  striking  point  is 
that  this  Benediction  is  not  directly  before  the  Shema'  in 
the  two  Genizah  fragments,  but  before  13  "13.  Does  it  seem 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  Shema  Benediction  was 
recited  before  1313? 

Light  is  thrown  upon  the  bearing  of  this  Benediction 
by  a  Kesponsum  of  Rabbenu  Hai's,  and  by  the  remarks 
of  a  number  of  the  old  authorities  about  the  Shema1  Bene- 
diction before  bedtime.  Rabbi  Hai,  T\"w,  57,  decides  against 
the  use  of  nanta  i3^»ni>i  yov  nnp  by  i"3pK  n"DK  '"«3  before 
the  noon  by  w"\>.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  Shema'  Bene- 
diction of  the  two  fragments  contains  nothing  new.  It  is 
merely  a  variant  of  Rabbi  Hai's  form,  a  form  to  be  found 
also  in  D^n  'ms,  I,  430,  Abudraham,  23,  and  'Ittur,  II, 
34  c1.  Its  import  is  conveyed  to  us  in  an  observation 
made  by  Rabbi  Asher  ben  Yehiel,  on  the  beginning  of 
Berakot,  which  is  repeated  by  his  son  Rabbi  Jacob,  in 
Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  235.  According  to  a  well-known 
custom2  the  Evening  Prayer  was  said  at  the  synagogue 
immediately  following  upon  the  Afternoon  Prayer,  even 
if  night  had  not  yet  set  in.  This  necessitated  the  repetition 
of  the  Shema'  after  nightfall.  As  the  Rabbinical  injunction 
requires  its  recital  at  night,  the  authorities  insisted  upon 
its  being  said  before  going  to  bed,  even  if  it  had  been 
prayed  at  the  synagogue  in  the  Evening  Service.  Some 


1  Comp.  also  W;ir,  40,  and  Tosafot,  on  Berakot,  2  a,  catchword 
end,  and  Hullin,  105  a,  bottom. 

2  This  custom  must  have  arisen  in  Palestine  and  spread  thence  to  the 
European  countries,  but  it  gained  no  foothold  in  Babylonia,  on  account 
of  the  opposition  of  the  Geonim.   Comp.  Rabbi  Hai's  Responsum  in  fi,  78: 
and  n*r,  76  ;  quoted  also  by  many  old  authorities. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  137 

ordered,  that  with  the  Shema1  the  two  Benedictions  also 
were  to  be  repeated1,  for  the  reason  that  they,  too,  had 
been  recited  in  the  synagogue  before  nightfall.  Rabbi 
Amram,  however,  says  Rabbi  Asher,  was  of  opinion  that 
it  was  not  obligatory  to  say  over  again  the  Shema'  Bene- 
dictions in  their  full  wording.  A  brief  Benediction. 
according  to  the  usual  formula  of  the  rnaia,  sufficed.  There 
can  hardly  be  a  doubt  but  that  Rabbi  Asher  found  this 
view  of  Rabbi  Amram's  in  his  Seder  under  noon  by  t?"p. 
In  our  text  it  is  missing,  in  consonance  with  the  opinion 
of  the  later  authorities2,  who  permitted  neither  this  nor 
any  other  Benediction  in  connexion  with  the  ntson  by  t/'p. 
There  is  only  one  MS.  of  the  Seder  in  which  the  ab- 
breviated Benediction  appears,  the  Oxford  MS.  Even  there, 
however,  it  seems  probable  to  me  that  the  passage  Dllpi 
'01  nnxnp  was  not  derived  from  the  Seder,  but  from  some 
other  source.  My  reason  is  that  as  it  now  reads  in  the 
Oxford  MS.,  it  contains  a  contradictio  in  adjecto.  If  stress 
is  laid  upon  the  recital  of  a  Benediction  before  the  Shema' 
at  bedtime,  and  if  stress  is  laid  upon  it  for  the  reason  that 
the  Evening  Service  is  held  before  nightfall,  the  appointed 
time  for  the  Shema  ,  then  it  would  follow  that  the  whole 
Shema  should  be  repeated,  not  merely  the  first  Parashah, 
as  our  text  and  the  Oxford  MS.  provide  3.  It  is  also  worthy 
of  note  that  the  passage  in  question  is  not  in  its  proper 
place  in  the  Oxford  MS.  It  should  have  read  bapb  "p3Oi 
DK  rr<m  ny  y»e>  JD  miptn  rims  Niipi  rrobt?  nw  rnabo  wby 
•patsi  yiDB>.  The  original  Shema1  Benediction  before 
noon  by  K^p,  which  was  nothing  but  an  equivalent  for  the 
two  long  Benedictions  which  accompanied  the  Shema1 
when  it  was  recited  before  nightfall,  was  looked  upon 
later  as  a  special  Benediction4  for  noon  by  t/'p,  without 
reference  to  the  time  of  saying  the  Shema'  in  the 


1  Comp.  rev  '-\  'Yobn,  Berakot,  beg.,  and  Caro,  Bet  Yos?f,  n*s,  335. 
3  Comp.  Tosafot,  Berakot,  beg.,  and  Albargeloni,  quoted  in  *n*ac,  40. 

3  Comp.  Rashi  and  Tosafot,  Berakot,  beg. 

4  Thence  the  opposition  of  Rabbi  Hai  to  this  Benediction  ;  he  says. 

in  men  ITOD  to  c'ptn  r:EO 


138  THE    GEONIM 

Evening  Service,  whether  after  or  before  nightfall. 
This  is  the  conception  that  finds  expression  in  the 
Oxford  MS.,  as  it  does  in  later  ritualists,  and  it  is  a 
conception  that  is  not  wholly  in  accord  with  Rab 
Amram's  view. 

This  analysis  enables  us  to  understand  the  Shema*  Bene- 
diction in  the  Genizah  fragments.  A  substitute  for  the 
prescribed  Shema'  Benedictions  in  the  evening  was  a 
common  expedient  in  congregations  where  the  Evening 
Service  took  place  in  the  synagogues  before  nightfall,  as 
was  the  case  outside  of  Babylonia1.  But  there  were  cir- 
cumstances requiring  an  alternative  Benediction  even  in 
the  Morning  Service,  either  for  an  individual  who  had  time 
only  for  the  Shema',  but  not  for  the  whole  Morning  Prayer, 
or  for  the  whole  congregation  on  fast  days  and  holidays, 
on  which  the  elaborate  service  was  so  long  drawn  out 
that  the  Shema'  might  fall  beyond  the  proper  time2.  In 
such  cases,  and  similar  ones,  Shema  was  recited  in  private 
devotion  before  the  regular  service,  with  the  short  Bene- 
diction in  the  Genizah  fragments.  For  this  reason  it  is 
not  given  as  a  Shema'  Benediction  after  nn  ronx  or  ronx 
D^iy,  but  as  coming  before  wni,  because  only  an  individual, 
and  he  only  if  he  does  not  recite  jflDt?  ni3"in,  is  to  recite 
the  short  Benediction.  It  is,  in  fine,  a  special  Benediction, 
which  really  should  have  no  place  in  a  regular  Order 
of  Prayers. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  introduction  of  Shema1 
with  the  three  words  fONJ  "jta  bx  is  only  a  remnant  of  this 
very  Shema1  Benediction.  The  opposition  to  it  must  have 
been  strong  enough  to  force  out  niatal  DP,  which  was 
replaced  by  ita  ta.  Accordingly,  the  complete  introduction 
must  have  run  thus  at  some  time  after  nia^oi  DP  was 
omitted :  nsan  s?BXM  D^>P  33^3  ^taa  few  i?n  ^N,  and  all  that 
remained  of  it  were  the  first  three  words. 

1  Comp.  above,  p.  137,  n.  2. 

2  Comp.  Yer.  Berakot,  1, 3  c  ;  the  Geonic  Responsum  quoted  in  Albarge- 
loni,  D'nrn  'c,  255  ;  3>^D,  3  a,  and  n*N,  I,  6  c. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  139 

An  old  addition,  derived  from  the  Sephardic  prayer- 
book,  is  the  congregational  prayer  1»K>  rane",  27  b.  So 
early  an  authority  as  Albargeloni  had  it  in  his  copy  of 
the  Seder  Rob  Amram,  as  he  tells  us  in  DTi^n  'D,  250, 
while  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  57,  reports  the  reverse  about 
his  copy.  That  it  was  missing  in  the  model  for  our  text 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  does  not  appear  in  the 
Week-day  Service,  though  there  is  no  reason  for  reciting 
this  prayer  on  the  Sabbath  exclusively 1. 

The  order  of  the  verses  '131  inp™  . . .  pro  inpnv  is  stamped 
as  incorrect  by  Abudraham,  and  he  recommends  that  they 
be  recited  as  they  succeed  each  other  in  the  Seder  Rab 
Amram.  But  our  text  has  the  repudiated  arrangement, 
except  in  the  New  Year  Service,  where  the  order  is  that 
recommended  by  Abudraham. 

What  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  Nathan  says  in  his  Manhig, 
33  a,  makes  it  plain  that  in  his  copy  of  the  Seder  the 
Talmud  sections  are  not  set  down  to  be  recited  at  the  end 
of  the  Afternoon  Sabbath  Service,  and  the  passage  KBIT — *P"»S 
is  properly  enough  found  to  be  missing  in  the  Oxford  and 
the  Sulzberger  MSS. 

The  formula  for  pin  nns  at  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  as 
given  in  our  text,  differs  from  that  quoted  in  the  Manhig, 
33  b,  from  the  Seder.  As  Maimonides  agrees  with  the 
Manhig,  it  remains  only  to  assume  that  our  text  was 
shortened  in  this  passage. 

The  prayer  ,  .  .  ^nn  X"IK,  on  page  31  b,  is  known  to  the 
Manhig  only  as  a  Spanish  custom,  and  to  justify  it  the 
author  resorts,  not  to  the  Seder,  but  to  a  Yerushalmi 
passage,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  it  did  not  occur  in  his 
copy  of  the  Seder.  This  throws  doubt  upon  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  whole  section,  from  JVJHB>K  until  nyiB^,  all  the 
more  as  it  is  missing  in  the  Oxford  MS.  That  it  is,  in 
spite  of  this,  an  addition  of  respectable  age  may  be  inferred 

Albargeloni,  it  is  true,  deals  with  the  Sabbath  Service,  but  it  is  fair 
to  assume  that  he  had  TOC  name'  of  the  Week-day  Service  also  before  him. 
The  editor  of  the  own  'D  observes  that  it  is  not  contained  in  our  y"-\c ! 


140  THE    GEONIM 

from  its  being  quoted  from  the  Seder  Rob  Amram  by  Ibn 
Gajat,  v"V,  I,  15,  as  the  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  299,  does  also. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  recognised  as  an  interpolation  by  the 
circumstance  that  it  is  a  piece  put  in  between  the  Habdalah 
and  the  draining  of  the  Habdalah  cup.  It  does  not  seem 
likely  that  between  the  Benediction  over  the  wine  and 
the  drinking  of  the  wine  itself  so  long  an  interval  would 
be  interposed  as  is  required  for  the  recital  of  this  piece, 
the  rule  being  that  a  Benediction  is  to  be  followed  at  once 
by  the  enjoyment  of  the  food  and  drink  over  which  it  is 
said.  It  is  therefore  much  simpler  to  assume  that  it  was 
taken  from  some  other  source,  and  as  the  copyist  could  not 
well  attach  it  to  the  Halakic  portion  of  the  Seder,  there 
was  nothing  for  him  to  do  but  join  it  to  the  Habdalah. 

On  41  b,  in  the  Order  of  Prayers  for  the  second  day 
of  the  Passover,  the  counting  of  the  *0mer  is  missing.  Yet 
it  was  present  in  the  copy  of  the  Seder  used  by  B-abbi 
Aaron  of  Lunel,  as  appears  from  a  remark  of  his  in  Dims 
D«n,  I,  84  a. 

As  an  adjustment  in  conformity  with  the  Sephardic 
rite,  we  may  consider  jJDI  Ti  7X  in  the  first  Benediction 
of  the  'Amidah  for  the  New  Year,  which  Abudraharn 
attributes  to  the  ignorance  of  the  people.  He  accuses 
them  of  having  changed  this  Benediction  as  given  in  the 
Seder  Rab  Arnra/m,.  Our  text  again  agrees  with  the  custom 
of  the  ignoramuses.  If  we  call  to  mind  how  zealous  the 
Geonim  were  in  denouncing  any  change  in  the  'Amidah, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  Abudraham's 
version  of  the  Seder  in  comparison  with  our  text. 

Another  change  in  the  'Amidah  for  the  New  Year  is 
the  insertion  of  trip  tnpo  21B  DV.  Of  the  Seder  Rab  Amram 
it  did  not  form  a  part,  for  which  we  have  the  clear 
testimony  of  the  author  of  the  Manhig,  52-3.  It  is  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Spanish  liturgy,  and  our  text  was  here 
subjected  to  an  importation  from  it. 

The  remark  made  by  Ibn  Gajat  on  the  changes  in  the 
'Amidah  prescribed  by  Rab  Amram  for  the  Ten  Peni- 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  14! 


tential  Days  (E^t?,  I,  45)  proves  the  sentences  D"r  —  DIM, 
45  a,  to  be  an  addition  from  the  Spanish  Mahzor. 

The  Benediction  over  the  Shofar,  in  the  copy  of  the 
Seder  Rob  Amram  used  by  Ibn  Gajat,  read  jnpn^  (v"&,  I, 
261),  while  our  text  offers  the  formula  prescribed  by 
Rabbenu  Hai.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ivpn  7tfy0  in  his 
copy  of  the  Seder  had  the  words  KM  r»jR3  yiprb  "pa  OKI. 
One  must  despair  of  establishing  the  wording  of  this 
Benediction  original  to  the  Seder. 

The  prayer  n^rr.K  is  properly  missing  in  the  printed  text, 
27,  while  the  MSS.  Oxford  and  Sulzberger  contain  it  as 
an  addition  from  the  Sephardic  Mahzor.  It  is,  doubtless, 
of  Palestinian  origin,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  Mahzor 
Romania,  where  it  has  a  place  in  the  Daily  Prayer. 
Besides,  the  closing  Benediction  *^pn  Ttt£>  ''"Nil  is  known 
to  us  to  have  been  used  as  such  through  a  passage  in  the 
Yerushalmi  Berakot,  I  l,  and  accordingly  belongs  to  the  rem- 
nants of  the  Palestinian  liturgy,  which  have  been  preserved 
among  the  Sephardim,  Ashkenazim,  and  Italiani. 

The  words  npnpn  wi^no  VW2,  on  47  a,  make  it  seem 

1  Not  in  our  text  of  the  Yerushalmi,  but  in  the  text  used  by  the  old 
authors.     Comp.  Ratner,  D'tem  p'S  run**,  33-4.      Maimonides  also  has 
this  formula,  as  well  as  Rabbi  Saadia,  in  his  'Abodah  given  by  Dr.  Elbogen 
in  his  Studien,  &c.,  122.     Curiously  enough,  Dr.  Elbogen  overlooked  this, 
on  p.  70,  n.  i. 

2  Weiss  (IV,  49)  reproaches  the  Geonim  for  calling  the   Academy 
n«mpn  n:w.     However,  it  is  not  the  Geonirn  who  use  the  expression, 
but  the  scholars  outside  of  Babylonia  (R.  Ibn  Abitur  and  Mosea  ben  Enoch, 
in  y*\r,  4  d,  29  ;  30  a,  9)  or  the  correspondents  of  the  Geonim  (•>":,  9).   In  the 
latter  passage,  the  question  contains  the  words  :  rrempn  nya*2  an:orr  TW, 
while  the  Gaon's  reply  was  the  simple  i:3n2?3.     Likewise  in  V^air,  172, 
mmpn  unjTraa   is  a  remark  made   by  the   compiler  of  the   Responsa. 
In  general,  the  Geonim  either  cite  decisions  by  other  Geonim  or  the 
custom  of  the  Academy,  but  never  a  decision  of  the  Academy,  which, 
indeed,  would  have  been  odd  coming  from  a  Gaon,  as  all  decisions  were 
supposed  to  be  issued  by  him  and  not  by  the  Academy.     In  01*123,  44, 
rronpn  nruvron  in  Rabbi  Sherira's  reply  is  only  a  verbatim  repetition  of  the 
expression  employed  by  the  questioner.     It  is  interesting  that  in  the  Re- 
sponsum  by  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi  Hai  jointly,  found  in  the  Responsa 
Collection  of  Rabbi  Solomon  Ibu  Adret,  V,  25,  a-b,  n.  121,  the  question 
contains  the  expression  rroipn  nrc'n,  while  the  answer  has  instead  of  it 
•sto  rrrrr. 


142  THE    GEONIM 

very  likely  that  mJ  ^3  was  missing  in  the  original  Seder, 
for  these  words  were  never  used  by  the  Geonim.  If, 
besides,  we  take  into  consideration  that  m:  ^D  was  un- 
known in  Babylonia,  as  -we  are  told  by  the  Geonim  of 
Sura  and  of  Pumbedita  without  a  dissenting  voice1,  the 
probability  of  its  not  having  formed  a  constituent  part 
of  Rab  Amram's  Seder  rises  almost  to  certainty.  There 
would  be  no  explanation  to  offer  for  Rab  Amram's  pro- 
cedure in  first  putting  it  into  his  Seder,  and  then  character- 
ising it  as  a  "  foolish  custom."  We  probably  are  troubled 
by  two  additions  derived  from  different  sources.  The 
first  addition,  the  ma  ^3  itself,  came,  in  all  likelihood,  from 
the  Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  and  to  this  was  joined,  as  a 
second  addition,  the  disparaging  criticism  upon  it  made 
by  Rabbi  Natronai,  introduced  by  the  words  xmTiDD  nJB* 
nefipn. 

To  the  Spanish  Mahzor,  again,  the  prayers  Kl^l  nTjp  and 
"p!>o,  on  48  a,  are  attributable.  As  we  learn  from  explicit 
statements  in  Ibn  Gajat,  w"v,  I,  61,  and  Manhig,  60,  it  was 
Rab  Amram's  opinion  that  these  prayers  were  not  to  be 
said  on  omaan  DV.  The  author  of  the  Manhig,  and  Abu- 
draham  as  well  (133),  add  that  none  but  the  Spanish  rite 
differs  from  Rab  Amram.  This  point  affords  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  heedless  way  in  which  the  copyist  to 
whom  we  owe  our  text  set  aside  the  real  Seder  of  Rab 
Amram.  On  47  a,  where  a  list  of  the  initial  words  of  the 
prayers  for  a"anv  is  given,  he  followed  his  model  implicitly. 
There  he  included  neither  r6y  nor  "pta.  But  two  pages 
further  on  he  could  not  refrain  from  setting  down  what 
he  was  accustomed  to  connect  with  the  services  of  the  day. 

Our  text  contains  no  alphabetical  NDn  *?y,  yet  Abudraham, 
153,  cites  one  from  the  Seder  Rab  Amram. 

The  prayer  for  a  mother  on  the  day  when  the  child  to 

1  Comp.  tD"ir,  I,  60-1.  Rabbi  Saadia  is  the  only  one  who  knows 
Kol-Nidre,  whence  it  follows  that  it  was  of  Palestinian  origin,  as  the 
Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia  follows  the  Palestinian  customs  closely ;  comp. 
below,  pp.  166-7.  Concerning  the  opposition  of  the  Geonim  to  cm:  mm, 
comp.  above,  p.  96,  n.  r. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  143 

which  she  has  given  birth  is  circumcised,  52  b,  is  a  later 
addition,  as  was  proved  by  the  present  writer  in  the 
Z.  H.  B.t  IX,  1 06.  The  Geonic  sources  mention  a  prayer 
for  the  child,  but  none  for  the  mother. 

The  Benediction  to  be  said  at  the  circumcision  of  a 
proselyte,  and  of  a  slave,  as  set  down  in  the  Manhig,  98  b, 
from  the  Seder,  is  not  in  agreement  with  our  text,  which 
should  probably  be  modified  according  to  the  Manhig. 

In  view  of  all  the  passages  instanced,  it  would  be  a 
wilful  perversion  of  judgment  to  make  an  inference  regard- 
ing the  nature  of  the  Geonic  liturgy  from  the  recensions 
of  the  Seder  at  present  available.  Our  printed  text  cannot 
be  looked  upon  as  anything  more  or  less  than  a  Spanish 
Order  of  Prayer  with  some  additions  from  the  real  Seder 
Rab  Amram.  The  same  characterisation  applies  also  to 
the  MSS.  Sulzberger  and  Oxford1,  though  they  deviate 
here  and  there  from  the  printed  text.  Of  the  two  MSS. 
the  Oxford  apparently  is  a  more  recent  version,  the  in- 
sertions in  which  may  have  been  taken  from  the  Seder 
of  Rabbi  Saadia.  This  supposition  is  strengthened  by  the 
long  passages,  given  by  Marx,  Unter&uchungen,  &c., 
Hebrew  part,  4,  6,  18,  which  are  said  expressly  to  have 
been  derived  from  Rabbi  Saadia,  and  p.  n,  relative  to 
rim,  which  is  quoted  by  various  authors  with  the  name 
of  Rabbi  Saadia  attached  to  it2.  The  grace  after  meals 
in  the  MSS.,  having  the  same  wording  in  the  two,  is  also 
more  recent  than  the  printed  text  of  the  prayer,  as  is 
shown  by  *?2ib  pron  rp-O  given  at  the  end  of  the  Seder. 
The  prayer  after  pin  pm  in  the  Oxford  MS.  is  doubtless 
a  later  addition3.  Rab  Amram  would  scarcely  have  sent 
the  Spanish  congregations  more  than  the  main  prayers. 
Hence  the  difference  between  the  forms  of  the  nunn  in 

1  I  have  given  the  prayers  in  them  only  a  cursory  examination,  but 
I  am  convinced  they  agree  with  the  printed  text  in  all  essentials. 

2  Comp.  Miiller  in  (Ewares  Complets  de  R.  Soodt'a,  IX,  156. 

s  The  sentence  (28)  ib  inno  ....  ^xVo  occurs  almost  literally  in  an 
epitaph  at  Brindisi,  of  the  year  833,  published  by  Ascoli,  Inscriziotie,  66. 
Comp.  also  n*w,  II,  635. 


144  THE    GEONIM 

the  printed  text  and  the  MSS.,  as  none  of  them  were 
contained  in  the  original  Seder  Rob  Amram.  There 
is,  of  course,  no  need  to  lose  time  in  adducing  proofs  that 
the  addition  to  Nishmat  in  MS.  Oxford  (24)  is  a  late 
insertion,  nor  that  the  extracts  from  the  Hekalot,  to  be 
found  only  in  the  printed  text,  most  probably  were  not 
of  the  original  constituent  parts  of  the  Seder.  It  is  sig- 
nificant that  while  the  Oxford  MS.  has  no  nw  in  the 
Week-day  Service  (p,  3),  it  has  it  in  the  Sabbath  Service 
(13),  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  we  find  in  the  printed 
text.  As  has  been  demonstrated,  Rab  Amram  did  not 
have  the  PITS?  in  his  Seder. 

THE  HALAKIC  PART  OF  THE  SEDER  RAB  AMRAM. 

It  now  behoves  us  to  explain  how  it  happened  that  of 
all  old  works  the  Seder  Rab  Amram  was  subjected  to  such 
peculiar  treatment.  Like  the  others  it  suffered  additions 
to  its  essential,  original  form.  But  that  is  not  all — the 
essential  original  form  itself  was  not  left  intact,  it  was 
so  modified,  abridged,  and  extended,  that  we  now  have 
very  little  of  what  it  was  in  the  first  place,  when  it  left 
the  hands  of  Rab  Amram.  Prayer-book  making  among 
Jews  is  a  wholly  modern  trade.  Rab  Amram  did  not,  by 
any  manner  of  means,  write  a  prayer-book.  He  merely 
sent  the  Spanish  congregations  the  prayers  prayed  in 
Babylonia,  well  knowing  that,  to  use  a  Talmudic  phrase, 
"  every  stream  has  its  own  current."  He  had  no  intention 
of  forcing  Babylonian  rites  upon  Spanish  congregations. 
Incorrect  readings,  which  had  crept  into  some  of  the 
prayers  in  the  course  of  the  centuries,  were  rectified  in 
the  Halakic  notes  accompanying  them,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  notes  served  to  state  the  principles  which  had 
guided  the  Tannaim  and  Amoraim  in  settling  the  form 
of  the  prayers,  and  which  still  were  to  be  applied  as  norms. 
These  explanations  of  the  Gaon  subjoined  to  the  prayers 
were  the  important  part  of  Rab  Amram's  Responsum  for 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  145 

the  Spanish  Jews.  There  was  no  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  latter  to  abolish  their  local  rites,  but  when  the 
congregations  had  differing  customs,  or  in  doubtful  cases, 
the  directions  of  the  Gaon  were  resorted  to,  consulted, 
and  applied.  The  main  task  of  the  copyists,  employed 
by  those  interested  in  spreading  the  Seder,  consisted  not 
in  reproducing  the  prayers,  but  in  recording  the  Halakic 
directions  and  the  important  variations  from  their  prayers 
given  by  Rab  Amram.  In  this  way  we  have  come  into 
possession  of  Spanish  prayer-books  embellished  with  ad- 
ditions from  Rab  Amram's  Seder  as  well  as  his  Halakic 
instructions.  Similarly,  the  Germans  had  their  3YT  DniTHD 
D"i»y l,  prayer-books  embodying  their  liturgy  together 
with  the  Halakic  portions  of  Rab  Amram's  Seder2. 
Of  the  same  class  is  the  Mahzor  Vitry,  which  contains 
the  major  part  of  the  Halakic  element  of  the  Seder,  but 
in  the  prayers  themselves  it  follows  the  French  ritual. 
In  view  of  the  close  relation  subsisting  between  some 
of  the  prayers  and  the  Halakot  accompanying  them,  it 
may  be  assumed,  without  further  evidence,  that  the  Spanish 
congregations,  and  here  and  there  others  as  well,  yielded 
to  the  great  authority  of  Rab  Amram,  and  made  changes 
in  their  liturgy  in  consonance  with  his  directions,  such 
as  the  excision  of  the  reference  to  the  Messianic  redemption 
from  the  Geullah,  which,  as  was  demonstrated  above,  existed 
in  the  old  Spanish  forms  of  the  prayer.  Occasionally, 
compromises  must  have  been  made  between  the  local 
custom  and  the  version  recommended  by  the  Gaon.  When 
we  find  the  Sephardim  using  ina  for  the  Musaf  Kedushah, 
and  •je'npJ  for  the  Kedushah  of  nnnsr,  it  is  fair  to  conclude 


1  fin,  I,  26  b. 

2  Naturally,  many  a  Halakah  was  given  a  place  in  the  Mahsorim  that 
had  the  sanction  neither  of  Rab  Amram's  name  nor  any  other  Gaon's. 
Hence,  quotations  from  the  y*SD  in  the  works  of  the  German  authors 
that  cannot  be  traced.    For  instance,  a  contemporary  of  Rashi's  grandsons 
('Vi  s'n  'on,  3)  cites  the  nbn  nofci  of  Rab  Amram,  of  which  not  a  trace 
can  be  found  in  the  r"So ,  and  probably  it  never  existed  there. 

I  L 


146  THE    GEONIM 

that  we  have  an  instance  of  an  attempt  at  amalgamating 
different  rituals  *. 

The  influence  of  the  Babylonian  ritual  must,  therefore, 
have  been  strongest  in  Spain,  whither  the  Seder  was  first 
taken,  which,  however,  did  not  hinder  it  from  asserting 
itself  among  the  Franco-German  Jews.  In  pursuing  this 
line,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  frequently  what  is 
denominated  the  custom  according  to  the  Seder  Rob 
Amram  is  nothing  but  the  old  Spanish  rite,  which  agrees 
with  the  old  Ashkenazic  rite,  both  derived  from  Palestine2. 

While  the  liturgical  part  of  the  Seder  was  badly  abused 
by  the  copyists,  the  Halakic  part  has  reached  us  in  com- 
paratively good  condition.  After  what  has  been  said,  the 
reason  is  patent.  The  prayers  the  copyists  knew  by  heart, 
and  they  paid  little  attention  to  their  model.  They  wrote 
as  their  memory  dictated.  Besides,  they  knew  that  the  value 
of  their  work  was  concentrated  mainly  in  the  copying  of  the 
Halakot.  To  these  they  therefore  devoted  conscientious 
care.  It  was  inevitable,  of  course,  that  in  spite  of  all 
attention,  even  this  portion  of  his  Seder  should  receive 
additions  from  other  hands  than  Rab  Amram's,  and,  also, 
several  Responsa  by  him,  which  he  seems  to  have  addressed 
to  Spanish  scholars  independently  of  the  Seder,  have  been 
inserted  at  suitable  places.  For  instance,  the  Halakot  on 
pp.  26  a-b,  bearing  the  name  of  Rab  Amram,  are  abstracts 

1  Comp.  G.  S.,  p.  49. 

a  The  great  respect  enjoyed  by  the  y"-iD  among  the  Franco-German 
Jews  is  apparent  from  the  words  of  Rabbenu  Tarn,  in  ixrrn  'r,  ed.  Rosenthal, 
•99,  in  which  he  maintains  that  the  Seder  was  the  chief  source  for  the 
prayers.  Rapoport,  jn:  'l  'n ,  note  29,  goes  too  far,  however,  when  he  says 
that  the  Germans  were  the  only  ones  to  accept  the  Seder  Rab  Amram, 
excluding  the  Spaniards  as  he  does.  Yet  his  instinct  was  correct  in 
laying  stress  upon  the  influence  exercised  by  the  y*"iD  upon  the  German 
liturgy.  In  his  polemic  against  Rapoport,  Weiss,  Dor,  IV,  121-2,  is  less 
close  to  the  truth  when  he  deduces  the  dependence  of  the  Sephardic 
ritual  upon  the  y'no,  from  the  agreement  between  the  former  and  our 
text  of  the  Seder.  We  have  seen  that  the  relation  is  exactly  the  reverse. 
Furthermore,  Weiss  is  mistaken  in  calling  Maimonides'  Seder  Sephardic 
it  is  Egypto-Palestinian. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  147 

of  Responsa  of  his  addressed  to  the  congregation  of  Barce- 
lona, b*3,  56-7.  Ibn  Gajat,  e^t?,  1, 10,  and  Rabbi  Abraham  of 
Lunel,  Manhig,  26  a,  quote  these  passages,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  they  knew  them  from  the  Responsa  as  such,  or 
from  the  Seder1.  The  sentence  Drroa — 1^t  37  b,  did  not 
occur  in  the  Seder  used  by  the  author  of  the  Manhig  (43  a) ; 
it  is  obviously  a  gloss  calling  attention  to  a  Responsum  of 
Rab  Amram's,  which  gives  support  to  this  peculiar  custom 
by  means  of  the  authority  of  the  Yeshibot  and  the  Geonim 2 
— authentication  which  was  all  the  more  pertinent,  as  not 
only  did  the  European  Jews  know  nothing  of  the  recital  of 
rniri>D  on  Purvm,  but  also  the  Geonim  themselves  were  far 
from  unanimity  upon  the  point,  as  appears  from  TUT,  Orah 
Hayyim,  693.  It  would  seem  that  the  custom  prevailed 
only  in  Sura  ;  in  Pumbedita  no  nin^D  were  prayed  on 
Purim.  So  far  as  Sura  is  concerned,  the  testimony  of 
Rab  Amram  is  reinforced  by  the  fact  that  Rabbi  Saadia 
himself  composed  nin^D  for  Purim,  published  by  Professor 
Schechter,  Saadyana,  49-50.  There  is  the  possibility,  of 
course,  that  these  rnn^D  may  have  been  intended  for  ivayn 
TTIDK.  The  sentence  nU'B"  —  a"yx,  on  p.  32  a,  is  taken 
from  a  Responsum  by  Rab  Amram,  quoted  in  full  by  the 
author  of  the  hi*??,  IO23. 

Additions  from  the  Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia  occur  in  three 
places  in  the  printed  text  of  the  Seder  Rab  Amram,  4  b 
(bis),  and  52  a.  But,  as  was  observed  above,  the  MSS. 
do  not  contain  the  first  two  insertions,  and  as  for  the 
third,  we  know  that  it  did  not  appear  in  the  copy  used 
by  Ibn  Gajat,  as  can  be  inferred  from  his  words  at  the  end 
of  &"v,  I.  It  seems  to  have  been  taken  from  the  DMn  mmx , 
26  c,  which  cites  the  opinion  of  Rabbi  Saadia  in  opposition 
to  Rab  Amram's. 

1  In  "jn'zc,  54,  it  was  doubtless  taken  from  a  Responsum,  and  not  from 
the  Seder. 

*  By  a  slip  the  author  of  bn'ac,  157,  writes  poio«i  p«:n!  For  the 
meaning  to  be  attached  to  pen  in  this  sentence  of  Rab  Amram's,  see  above, 
p.  24,  n.  i.  On  p.  29  of  the  'jn'niD  it  has,  properly,  pen  without  pom**. 

3  Comp.  also  Hazan,  ;rn  «n ,  45  a. 

L  2 


148  THE    GEONIM 


If  the  superscription  (i4b)  Nmaoia  —  n»X  m  is  correct, 
then,  naturally,  we  are  dealing  with  an  addition,  as  it  is  very 
improbable  that  Rabbi  Zemah  could  have  been  quoted  by 
Rab  Amram.  But  one  cannot  help  being  assailed  by 
doubts  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  superscription.  It 
is  not  impossible  that  the  abbreviation  'x  'n,  standing 
for  pnx  31,  was  improperly  interpreted  as  nox  'i,  and 
then,  to  complete  the  verisimilitude,  NJrnnoia  N'n  was  added 
after  ra^,  as  Rabbi  Zemah  was  Gaon  at  Pumbedita. 
Originally,  it  must  have  read  3py  pro  m»B*  wn  V""!1, 
without  specifying  the  Academy.  As  was  demonstrated 
at  length  above,  only  the  heads  of  the  Sura  Academy  bore 
the  title  Gaon.  At  first,  and  even  later,  when  the  heads  of 
the  Pumbedita  Academy  were  already  called  Geonim,  a 
distinction  was  still  made  between  the  3py  p«J  ro'B*  B'NI, 
the  head  of  Sura,  and  the  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  who  were 
only  r6tt  be>  mwn  PNI.  As  early  as  Talmudic  times 
(Rosh  ha-Shanah,  23  b),  r6i3  was  synonymous  with  Pumbe- 
dita 2.  Later  copyists,  especially  those  in  countries  remote 


pb,  ga,  has  the  reading  rras  pns',  plainly  traceable  to  the 
abbreviation  s"~\,  for  which  the  copyists  had  two  explanations,  prnr  '-\ 
and  nos  'i .  That  NTVIMIB  NTT  m'tra  is  a  later  addition  is  confirmed  by 
TIDTZJN,  I,  33,  where  it  does  not  appear.  The  names  pm"  and  pns  are  often 
confounded.  Comp.,  for  instance,  Mekilta,  Jethro,  I,  and  Sifre,  Deut.,  38. 
In  both  places  pis  is  to  be  read  instead  of  pn^%  as  appears  from  Kiddushin, 
32  a.  The  name  of  the  Gaon  Zadok  is  misread  for  pni"  in  z"n,  56,  n"n,  II, 
414,  SrVar,  an,  and  in  many  other  places.  Comp.  also  Zunz,  Gesammelte 
Schriften,  IV,  274.  MS.  0  reads  njnra  p*«  rros  n. 

a  What  Maimonides  (Commentary  on  Bekorot,  IV,  4)  has  to  say  on  the 
use  of  these  two  titles  at  his  own  time  is  particularly  interesting.  He 
informs  us  that  while  ipy  p«:  ramr  trsi  was  used  in  Palestine,  the 
Babylonians  bore  the  title  rrtu  to  nro'  wi.  The  reason  for  the  differing 
practices  is  obvious.  In  Palestine  they  tried  to  perpetuate  the  original 
title  of  the  Gaon,  while  in  Babylonia  the  title  of  the  head  of  Pumbedita 
was  continued,  as  this  Academy  survived  that  of  Sura  by  two  generations. 
The  Hebrew  text  of  Maimonides  is  corrupt.  It  reads  nron  pN  instead  of 
?23.  The  Ai-abic  text  published  by  LOwenstein,  Berlin,  1897,  p.  22,  has  the 
correct  reading  psiy'jM,  and  the  same  is  to  be  found  in  the  MS.  of  the 
Arabic  text  of  the  Maimonides  commentary  in  the  Jewish  Theological 
Seminary  of  America. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  149 

from  Babylonia,  did  not  distinguish  the  Geonim  from  each 
other  by  their  exact  titles.  The  mistake  having  been  made 
of  reading  x'n  as  no*  'n ,  the  expression  3py>  pw  r\yw  BVI 
was  retained,  while  the  words  NfmoiQ  NTI  were  added : 
they  bear  plainly  the  earmarks  of  an  explanatory  gloss. 

The  same  error  of  interpreting  an  abbreviation  incor- 
rectly may  have  changed  ^antM  'n,  4b,  into  |lB>m  '"i1. 

It  is  a  vexed  question,  the  identity  of  the  Rabbi  Nathan 
mentioned  three  times  in  the  Seder,  35  b,  and  37  a  (bis). 
In  the  last  two  places  he  is  called  m^  e>N"i,  both  in  the 
printed  text  and  in  the  MSS.,  which  gives  no  encourage- 
ment to  his  identification  with  the  uncle  of  Rabbi  Sherira. 
Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Rabbi  Judah.  The  latter  was  no  e>Nl 
r\yw,  only  an  «pta,  and  if  the  copyists  had  desired  to 
confer  a  more  distinguished  title  upon  him,  they  would 
have  called  him  Gaon,  the  usual  epithet  bestowed  later  upon 
a  very  prominent  scholar.  But  there  was  no  Rabbi  Nathan 
who  was  a  ra^  B>N"i  in  Babylonia,  and  we  have  the  choice 
of  again  resorting  to  a  falsely  interpreted  abbreviation, 
and  putting  }DJ  for  'NJnBJ2,  or  identifying  him  with  the 
contemporary  of  Rab  Amram,  the  Rabbi  Nathan  of  Kair- 
wan,  who  was  a  n^B*  t?N"i  in  Kairwan3.  The  difficulty 
of  identifying  this  Rabbi  Nathan  is  increased  by  the  fact 
that  Abudraham,  even  in  his  first  edition  (Lisbon,  1489), 
twice  has  foro  'i  in  citing  the  Seder.  In  the  first  passage, 
p.  79,  jorti  is  probably  a  mistake  for  Amram,  while  in  the 
second,  p.  no,  corresponding  to  37  a  of  our  text  of  the  Seder, 
the  dictum  ascribed  in  the  latter  to  Rabbi  Nathan,  is  quoted 
in  the  name  of  Rabbi  Nahman.  But  f»ru  would  seem  to  go 

1  Comp.,  R.  E.  J.,  LIV,  204,  where  this  passage  of  the  j?*-c  is  quoted, 
but  without  the  name  of  Rabbi  Nahshon.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting 
that  it  is  taken  from  the  Seder. 

*  An  interesting  example  of  mistaking  3*S  =  'JCITC:  'i  and  :"•}  =  |ro  'T 
for  each  other  is  afforded  in  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  190.  It  occurs  in  the 
first  Soncino  edition,  and  in  all  following  editions,  while  ed.  Mantua, 
1475,  has  'terra:  S  as  is  proper,  and  as  is  confirmed  by  o'rt,  187 ;  for 
indirect  testimony  by  Rashi  see  above,  p.  43,  line  6  from  below. 

s  Comp.  above,  pp.  31-2. 


150  THE    GEONIM 

back  to  }1BTU,  rather  than  to  |nJ.  The  name  of  the  Gaon 
is  elsewhere  found  corrupted  into  pro  l.  Thus  the  reading 
jr>3  becomes  very  doubtful.  Besides,  the  decision  given  on 
37  a  in  the  name  of  Rabbi  Nathan  offers  a  difficulty  in 
the  subject-matter.  It  contradicts  a  usage  prevailing  in 
the  Yeslnl)oty  if  we  can  put  implicit  confidence  in  the  words 
of  Rabbi  Natronai,  a^n,  187.  The  last  point  may  be 
adduced  in  support  of  the  assumption  that  the  authority 
referred  to  is  Rabbi  Nathan  of  Kairwan,  who  recorded 
his  opinion  here  at  variance  with  that  of  the  Babylonian 
Geonim. 

Apart  from  these  additions,  which  can  be  attributed  to 
definite  authors,  there  probably  are  a  number  of  anonymous 
passages  in  the  Halakic  part  of  the  Seder  that  did  not 
belong  to  it  originally,  but  were  inserted  in  the  course 
of  time.  For  instance,  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the 
references  to  the  Spanish  ritual,  i  a  and  2  a,  were  made  by 
the  hand  of  Rab  Amram  himself2.  The  expression  nxo  "p 
rvniEW  ni^NB>2  in  the  latter  place  is  not  a  Gaon's  way  of 
speaking. 

1  Comp.  Rapoport's  Introduction  to  p"j,  gb,  and  also  531*03,  47,  where, 
likewise,  ptcn;  is  to  be  read  instead  of  jnn:.  The  first  edition  of  Abu- 
draham  reads  p:  instead  of  jtsna  in  rv:rn  'n,  135,  in  agreement  with  y"-\~, 
35  b,  while  all  the  subsequent  editions  have  pn:  \  Schorr,  He-Halus,  VII, 
144-5,  insists  that  there  was  a  Gaon  by  the  name  of  Jon:,  though  none  is 
mentioned  by  Rabbi  Sherira  in  his  Letter.  By  way  of  corroboration,  he 
adduces  the  fact  that  Rabbi  Sherira  has  no  reference  to  the  Gaon  Rabbi 
Menahem,  of  whose  existence  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Schorr  evidently 
was  carried  away  by  his  opposition  to  Rapoport.  In  point  of  fact,  the 
Gaon  Rabbi  Menahem  is  mentioned  by  Sherira.  rr"on:  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, the  only  Gaon  by  that  name,  the  son  of  Kohen-Zedek,  not  having 
written  any  Responsa.  In  Abudraham,  139,  the  end  of  r*t~,  35  b,  is 
also  given  in  the  name  of  p:  S,  but  this  can  scarcely  be  correct,  as  in 
•31*03,  125,  and  cvn  'm«,  90 a,  the  same  passage  is  ascribed  to  Rabbi 
Jehudai,  whom  Rab  Amram  followed  here  as  in  many  other  places.  i"c, 
211,  has  fre  n:3T  which  seems  to  corroborate  our  assumption  that  R.  Nathan 
was  not  a  Gaon,  »:n  is  never  used  in  connexion  with  a  Gaon. 

*  Also  lines  14-17,  on  p.  5  b,  seem  very  suspicious  to  me.  On  the  use  of 
I::CN,  Germany,  comp.  the  Responsum  of  Rabbi  Paltoi  in  rsi'ia,  149,  where 
2"i::t»  are  mentioned. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


RELATION  OF  THE  MANUSCRIPTS  TO  THE  PRINTED  TEXT. 

The  fact  that  an  old  work  has  been  subjected  to  additions 
does  not  preclude  the  possibility  of  its  having  suffered 
abridgment  as  well.  However,  it  lies  in  the  nature  of 
these  Halakic  expositions  to  give  suitable  opportunities 
for  additions,  especially  extracts  from  Geonic  Responsa. 
It  may,  therefore,  be  formulated  as  a  rule,  that  only  the 
material  common  to  the  printed  text  and  the  MSS.  can 
with  certainty  be  considered  as  originally  part  of  Rab 
Amram's  work.  Accord  between  the  MSS.  and  the  old 
authors  is  not  in  itself  conclusive  as  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  passages  found  in  them.  At  most,  it  proves  that  such 
additions,  if  additions  they  be,  were  made  in  a  remote 
time.  And  in  point  of  fact  there  are  but  few  additions 
in  the  Sulzberger  and  the  Oxford  MSS.  that  cannot  be 
followed  up  in  one  or  another  old  author.  Some  of  these 
parallel  sources  to  the  MSS.  of  the  Seder  Rab  Amram 
follow  :  — 

The  resume  of  the  ni3"n  nxo  in  S  and  O,  i  ,  is  met  again 
literally  in  Mahzor  Vitry,  3-5,  and  an  abstract  of  it,  in 
DW  'D,  ed.  Schiff,  II,  235.  Besides,  the  conclusion  JNCI 
"p2Q*T  is  cited  in  the  Manhig,  7  b,  from  the  Seder.  Never- 
theless, it  does  not  seem  at  all  probable  that  Rab  Amram 
would  give  a  summing-up  of  the  01313  nND  sent  by  his 
predecessor  to  the  Spanish  congregations  not  very  long 
before  his  own  Responsum. 

The  regulations  regarding  the  benedictions  over  the 
Tejttlin,  the  Mahzor  Vitry  had  in  the  copy  of  the  Seder 
used  for  it,  in  agreement  with  O,  2,  as  appears  from  the 
remark  of  the  author  on  p.  642,  while  the  Manhig,  7  b,  is 
in  accord  with  our  text  *. 

Mahzor  Vitry,  5-6,  has  the  section  rvpint^  —  Kncai?  in 
MSS.  S  and  O,  and  also  TT  —  N^J,  found  only  in  MS.  S. 


1  Rab  Amram's  view  regarding  the  Tefillin  Benediction  has  been  trans- 
mitted variously  in  different  Poskim.  Hence  the  actual  view  of  Rab 
Amram  cannot  be  determined  any  more. 


152  THE    GEONIM 

MS.  O,  5,  is  like  Mahzor  Vitry,  14 — both  contain  the 
addition  pD"«M»  —  S^anem. 

Mahzor  Vitry  (28-32)  also  has  the  long  piece  on  ftehn 
rmjJD,  which  is  found  in  MSS.  S  and  O  (p.  7),  and  a  part  of 
it  is  described  by  Rabbi  Meir  of  Rothenburg,  in  raiBTi  '"'W, 
ed.  Bloch,  299,  as  having  been  taken  from  the  Seder.  On 
the  other  hand,  from  the  Manhig,  37  a,  we  should  infer 
justly  that  it  was  known  to  its  author  as  an  independent 
Responsum,  not  as  a  part  of  the  Seder,  into  which  it  may 
have  been  incorporated  later. 

The  reading  of  the  Mahzor  Vitry,  ^n  instead  of  <ID'I3,  is 
interesting.  The  latter  is  as  the  MSS.  of  the  Seder  and 
Pardes  (38  c)  have  it.  n"N,  I,  32  b,  has  it  from  the  Seder. 

Mahzor  Vitry  (78)  has  the  addition  offered  by  MSS.  S 
and  O,  19,  line  14,  and  also  on  214,  that  on  36,  line  36. 

The  explicit  treatment  of  the  Torah  lessons  in  MSS.  S 
and  O,  19-23,  probably  originates  in  the  ninitfp  nia^n,  but, 
as  appears  from  Mahzor  Vitry,  221,  it  was  in  the  Seder,  as 
the  Mahzor  cites  it  without  reference  to  the  source,  the  way 
of  the  author  with  quotations  from  the  Seder,  but  not  with 
those  from  other  Geonic  sources. 

Another  agreement  between  the  Mahzor  and  MS.  S  is  in 
the  passage  before  the  Shofar  blowing  (Mahz.,  355  ;  MS. 
S,  28). 

The  next  passage,  on  the  Ten  Penitential  Days,  occurs 
alike  in  MSS.  S  and  O  and  in  Mahzor  Vitry,  but  not  in 
D^n  'mx,  I,  960. 

The  long  excerpts  from  1|»1»yn  TiD1"1  in  Mahzor  Vitry, 
202,  280,  355,  375,  which  are  not  found  in  MSS.  S  and  O, 
indicate  that  the  Seder  used  by  the  Mahzor  could  not  have 
been  identical  with  the  model  upon  which  the  MSS.  are 
based.  This,  however,  can  be  asserted,  that  MSS.  S  and 

1  Epstein,  Schemaja  (reprinted  from  Honatsschrift,  XLI),  18,  note  i,  is  of 
Ihe  opinion  that  moi  inno  should  be  read  instead  of  'morn  ~IID',  and  his 
view  seems  to  be  supported  by  the  Sulzberger  MS.  of  the  original  1*0,  in 
which  the  sections  on  Eosh  ha-Shanah  and  Yom  ha-Kippur  begin  with  the 
passage  in  the  printed  Vn,  introduced  by  the  words  'Q-ioyrr  TID\ 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  153 

O  are  more  closely  related  to  the  Mahzor  Vitry  than  to 
the  printed  text  of  the  Seder.  The  latter  obviously  goes 
back  to  another  group  of  MSS.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
student  must  guard  against  the  error  of  accepting,  without 
further  investigation,  the  identity  of  the  MSS.  and  the 
printed  text  as  a  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  passages 
in  question 1.  Changes  must  have  taken  place  in  the  form 
of  the  Seder  at  so  early  a  date  that  all  the  versions  that 
have  reached  us  must  have  been  affected  by  them.  For 
example,  though  the  long  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Natronai  on 
the  Sabbath  Evening  Prayer  (25  a)  is  literally  the  same  in 
the  three  versions,  yet  we  are  plainly  shown  by  the  Manhig, 
23-4,  and  bn*3E>,  50,  that  it  is  an  abridgment.  In  fact, 
hitherto  it  has  not  been  observed  that  a  portion  of  the  end 
of  this  Responsum  is  to  be  found,  by  way  of  supplement,  on 
43  a.  The  observation  on  the  formula  in  Dlisn  was  originally 
a  part  of  the  Responsum  given  on  p.  25  a.  This  we 
learn  from  the  Manhig,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
author  had  the  correct  version.  The  copyist  who  omitted 
it  by  mistake — and  he  must  have  lived  in  very  early  times, 
as  is  shown  by  Albargeloni,  DTijn  'D,  173 — atoned  for  his 
slip  by  putting  it  in  under  niyi3B>  JH  *no.  How  inappropriate 
a  place  he  gave  it  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  was  over- 
looked there  by  all  the  scholars  of  our  day.  Professor 
Schechter  published  a  Genizah  fragment  in  the  J.  Q.  R., 
X,  656,  in  which  the  formula  of  Dlisn  has  a  wording 
different  from  the  one  we  are  accustomed  to,  as  follows : 
Bt&rW  HJUI  $>tae*  .  .  .  Dlisn.  This  benediction  runs  in 
pretty  much  the  same  way  in  another  Genizah  frag- 
ment published  by  Professor  Levi,  R.  £.  J.,  LIII,  235 : 
Q^rrv  run)  pnr  DPUD  bane*  . . .  omen.  This  supposedly  new 
benediction  is  identical  verbatim  with  that  in  a  Responsum 
by  Rabbi  Natronai,  quoted  in  the  Seder,  43  a,  and  in  the 

1  Priority  is  not  always  in  favour  of  the  versions  of  the  Seder  used 
by  the  Poskim.  For  instance,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  what  the  'irt'sc, 
184,  cites  from  the  Seder  is  Italian  Minhag,  and  equally  i*V,  128,  is  not 
quoting  an  original  piece  of  the  y"~c. 


154  THE    GEONIM 

Manhig,  23.  The  Genizah  fragments  are  doubtless  of 
Palestinian  origin,  for  not  only,  as  Professor  Levi  remarks, 
was  this  formula  in  the  Yerushalmi  used  by  Rabbi  Isaiah 
di  Trani  the  Elder,  Berakot,  IV,  8  c,  but  the  reading  is  also 
found  in  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  Yerushalmi.  It  should  be 
noted,  in  addition,  that  the  first  verse  of  the  Oeullah  in  the 
fragment  published  by  Professor  LeVi  should  read :  1J7  r\wy 
N7S  DB>  iniPJD  }VV3,  to  which  the  verse  .  .  .  nt?y  in  n^nx 
by  Jose  ben  Jose  forms  an  almost  verbal  parallel — further 
proof  for  the  Palestinian  origin  of  this  Payyetan. 

.SPURIOUS  WORKS  ATTRIBUTED  TO  THE  GEONIM  NAHSHON 
AND  HIS  SON  HAI. 

Many  a  work  is  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Nahshon,  the  successor 
of  Rab  Amram  in  the  Gaonate  of  Sura,  but  his  authorship 
can  be  maintained  with  certainty  only  regarding  one  of 
them,  the  'Iggul,  a  treatise  on  the  Jewish  calendar  system, 
which  Rabbi  Eliezer  ben  Jacob  Belin,  a  German  author 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  incorporated  in  his  book  nunay, 
Basle,  1527.  That  the  others  have  been  ascribed  to  him 
rests  upon  a  misunderstanding.  Though  Zunz  in  his  work 
Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  221,  properly  said  that  the 
Rabbi  Nahshon  who  was  the  author  of  the  Halakic  com- 
pendium noiNn,  a  compatriot  as  well  as  the  namesake  of 
the  Gaon,  was  separated  from  him  by  an  interval  of  five 
centuries,  scholars  like  Miiller,  in  his  Maftea/i,  131,  and 
Weiss,  in  his  Dor,  IV,  123,  continue  to  speak  of  the  work 
noiNl  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Nahshon.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  it  is  extremely  rare,  and  that  its  form  is  very  bizarre, 
I  shall  undertake  to  give  a  description  of  it,  according  to 
the  copy  once  owned  by  Halberstam,  now  in  the  Sulzberger 
Collection  of  the  library  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary 
of  America. 

The  work  consists  of  sixty  pages — last  one  blank — small 
quarto,  and  it  was  printed  in  the  year  1565  (=DriDD)  at 
Constantinople,  according  to  a  MS.  in  the  library  of  Don 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  155 

Joseph  Nasi,  accompanied  by  a  double  commentary  from 
the  hand  of  Rabbi  Isaac  Onkeneira.  The  title  of  the  book, 
abbreviated,  runs  thus :  N»swn  f)DV  fin  ,  ,  .  "PS  NX 

iy:t?  pN3  ^"T  pt?ru  -n"niD  hnan  nn  nan 
pro11  .  .  .  D3nn  Nin  N^n  .  .  .  pnvi  .  .  ,  n"jn 
'3  nx>  ma  enn  e>N"i  w  ava  Nr^NDnp  .  .  .  anrwa 
icnp  anoo  spppn. 

In  the  introduction  the  author  names  the  22nd  Adar 
of  the  year  5560  A.  M.,  or  1300  c.  E.,  as  the  date  on 
which  he  began  his  work,  and  mentions  the  fact  that 
he  was  the  head  of  an  Academy,  TIN  'nanna  -iyje>  '1N3, 
frequented  by  400  pupils,  for  the  use  of  whom  he  had 
written  his  little  work l.  Onkeneira  tells  us,  in  the  intro- 
duction to  his  commentary,  that  Don  Joseph  received  the 
MS.  of  the  book  from  a  distinguished  old  man,  DJivro 
Dn^y  'n  mrjn  arryiN  r~iN3,  which  probably  means  when 
Don  Nasi  still  was  in  Portugal.  At  the  request  of  Don 
Joseph,  Onkeneira  wrote  his  two  commentaries  on  the 
book,  the  ratio  of  commentaries  to  book  being  ten  to 
one.  The  last  page  contains  the  praise,  in  prose  and 
verse,  of  the  author,  the  commentator,  and  the  publisher, 
Don  Joseph,  composed  by  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Samuel  ha- 
Levi.  Not  until  we  reach  this  last  page  do  we  discover 
that  the  author  bore  the  title  Gaon,  but  Rabbi  Joseph 
had  no  intention  of  identifying  him  with  Rabbi  Nahshon, 
the  Gaon  of  Sura.  Rabbi  Joseph's  own  father  is  denominated 
Gaon.  So  far  as  I  can  recall,  Rapoport,  in  his  biography 
of  Rabbi  Nathan,  note  30,  was  the  first  to  be  misled  by  the 
title  of  the  booklet  and  to  identify  the  author  with  the 
Gaon  Rabbi  Nahshon.  It  need  not  be  said  that  if  Rapoport 
had  seen  the  book  itself,  he  would  never  have  entertained 
the  idea  of  attributing  it  to  the  Gaon.  Not  only  does  the 
author,  as  was  mentioned  above,  name  the  year  1300  as  the 
date,  but  the  book  is  based  essentially  upon  Maimonides. 
What  Onkeneira  says,  that  Rabbi  Nahshon 's  title 

1  What  city  is  meant  by  -ji«  is  hard  to  say,  probably  Bagdad. 


156  THE    GEONIM 

was  composed  of  the  two  words  no  1X1,  "See  Moses 
[Maimonides],"  is  probably  nothing  more  than  an  ingenious 
conceit,  but  he  is  right  in  assuming  the  author's  dependence 
upon  Maimonides.  In  point  of  fact,  the  book  is  scarcely 
more  than  a  brief  abstract  of  the  nanai  n&ryff  maj«l  of 
Maimonides.  The  following  illustrations  show  how  closely 
Rabbi  Nahshon  followed  the  views  expressed  in  tbe  Tad : — 

The  first  sentence,  rv^l  na*1  rvpTCQ,  can  be  explained 
only  from  Maimonides,  Shehitah,  I,  2.  The  other  codes 1, 
which  follow  the  Talmud  in  their  wording,  speak  of  nmn, 
which  is  ignored  by  Maimonides  and  our  author,  who 
follows  him. 

The  view,  p.  14,  that  the  slaughtering  knife  must  be 
examined  after  it  has  been  used,  is  derived  from  Maimonides, 
She/iitah,  I,  24.  It  is  a  view  not  shared  by  other  authorities. 

The  difference  (pp.  3 1-3)  between  nom  PSD  and  any  other 
PISPIB  pSD  is  inexplicable  without  the  help  of  Maimonides, 
Skehitah,  V,  3,  who  uses  the  case  to  exemplify  his  funda- 
mental view  on  the  subject  of  the  Sinaitic  Halakah. 

The  Halakic  value  of  the  little  book  is  slight,  as  we  have 
seen,  but  the  form  in  which  it  is  couched  deserves  some 
consideration.  The  author  attempts  to  condense  in  thirty- 
eight  brief  and  tersely  expressed  paragraphs  the  important 
regulations  regarding  ntaTiK'  and  nano.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  this  object,  it  is  not  a  despicable  achievement. 
An  interesting  point  is  the  author's  desire  to  imitate  the 
language  and  manner  of  the  Mishnah,  wherein  he  succeeded 
admirably.  This  is  all  the  more  noteworthy  as  the  style 
he  uses  in  the  introduction  may  be  called  Kaliric,  in 
strange  contrast  with  the  clear  and  pointed  style  of  the 
book  proper.  But  not  even  there  could  he  wholly  restrain 
himself  from  indulging  his  taste  for  the  bizarre.  To  the 
end  of  each  paragraph  he  adds  a  JOD,  which  in  most  cases 
is  a  conundrum,  and  one  cannot  but  admire  the  ingenuity 
of  Onkeneira,  who  succeeded  in  guessing  all  the  riddles. 

1  Comp.  the  commentators  on  this  passage  of  Maimonides. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  157 

The  explanations  by  Onkeneira  which  accompany  the 
little  book  are  of  statements  of  facts  and  linguistic  points. 
These  are  treated  of  in  his  commentary  entitled  mya  ruav. 
In  his  other  commentary,  called  *rn  nprn,  in  allusion  to 
Maimonides,  npmn  T,  he  deals  with  the  relation  existing 
between  Rabbi  Nahshon's  statements  and  those  of  Mai- 
monides' Code.  He  does  not  attempt  to  enter  into  the 
views  of  other  authorities.  In  a  single  passage  (p.  23)  he 
mentions  Rabbi  Joseph  Caro,  citing  his  Bet  Yosef  with 
these  words  :  Tia  nxp  «|DV  nVno  D^n  Tonn  pnaion  ain 
D'O^n  nytri  D'nbx  JV3  f)DV  JV3  naoa.  Furthermore,  he  men- 
tions his  grandfather,  Rabbi  Judah  Onkeneira,  three  times. 
On  p.  12  he  tells  the  following  about  him:  nw  npyo 
rvaa  nnvra  nx^pca  ^vr  ypr  o^n  oann  Tonn 
miiT  -n'rno  Tonn  ann  nyis*  »j«ytDB  D^D  ^ 


ain  vy  Dp  TN  ....  "sr  '•Jpr  Dn  oann  njrn  .  .  .  ipoa 
'r6«  nan  vnan  mim  it^Ni  ^y  IP^JI  ^  jenB>  7j  mirr. 
The  name  of  his  grandfather  is  not  attached  to  this  passage, 
but  on  p.  52  it  is  mentioned  plainly,  with  the  words  Tiyoen 
Ti'mo  D^n  oann  ^PT  TDnn  ^ao,  in  accordance  with  which 
*?"y  min11  we  should  read  on  p.  24.  His  uncle,  Rabbi  Moses 
Onkeneira,  is  referred  to  on  p.  42,  in  the  words  ^ao  Tiyon 
iD  i?ape>  i"n:  m»3»p3iy  nets  i^nn  ^  nn  D^trn  onnn  n»onn 


On  p.  32  a  saying  from  the  Yerushalmi  is  quoted  which 
is  not  found  in  our  text.  The  Yet^ushalmi  very  probably 
refers  to  some  Kabbalistic  work  2. 

The  quotation  occurring  in  a  Yemen  MS.,  published  by 
L.  Griinhut,  in  R.  £.  J.,  XXXIX,  31  1-12,  is  probably  taken 
from  a  mystical  work  attributed  to  Rabbi  Nahshon  3. 

1  Rabbi  Judah  ben  Isaac,  Rabbi  of  Magnesia  about   1500,  author  of 
a  commentary  on  Ruth. 

2  rrooini  baro'b  xc'i  «:T  rrb  n'«i  jun  'obci'a  pnawia  wo'2  NJTT  «:«»  WIT  ; 
the  language  is  that  of  the  Zohar  ;  so  far  as  I  know,  however,  the  dictum 
does  not  occur  in  the  Zohar. 

3  The  extract  published  by  Griinhut  was  known  before  ;  comp.  R.  £.J., 


158  THE    GEONIM 

The  Karaite  Kirkisani,  as  we  are  informed  by  Dr. 
Harkavy1,  who  published  portions  of  his  works  still  in 
MS.,  speaks  of  "  Hai,  the  head  of  the  Academy,  and  his 
father,  who  translated  the  law-book  of  Anan  from  the 
Aramaic  into  Hebrew,  and  with  the  exception  of  two 
points,  they  found  nothing  that  could  not  be  traced  back 
to  the  Rabbinic  writings."  As  Kirkisani  could  not  have 
been  thinking  of  Rabbi  Hai  ben  Sherira,  because  he  wrote 
before  the  great  Hai  was  born,  he  may  have  meant  Rabbi 
Hai  ben  Nahshon,  who  studied  the  works  of  Anan  with 
his  father  Nahshon.  It  is  possible  that  the  calendar  in- 
vestigations undertaken  by  Rabbi  Nahshon  in  connexion 
with  his  flggul  led  him  to  take  up  Karaitic  literature,  and 
he  naturally  sought  first  of  all  to  familiarise  himself  with 
the  works  of  the  founder  of  the  Karaite  sect.  If  we  bear 
in  mind  that  the  Gaon  of  Sura,  Natronai,  barely  one 
generation  before  Rabbi  Nahshon,  had  to  be  told  by  a 
Spanish  Jew  of  the  existence  of  Anan's  book  of  law2, 
it  does  not  seem  at  all  probable  that  an  early  successor 
of  his  would  make  it  the  subject  of  close  study.  And, 
in  point  of  fact,  Kirkisani's  report  bears  the  marks  of 
falsification.  Consider  the  monstrous  exaggeration,  that 
the  Gaon  Hai  had  found  only  two  matters  in  the  whole 
of  Anan's  book  of  law  that  could  not  be  shown  to  be 
derived  from  Rabbinic  sources,  the  truth  being  that  there 
are  barely  two  lines  in  his  book  that  are  in  agreement 
with  the  Rabbinical  authorities.  It  is  equally  out  of 
the  question  that  a  Gaon  should  have  busied  himself 
with  the  translation  of  a  Karaite  book,  and  from  Aramaic 
into  Hebrew  at  that.  The  Babylonian  Jews  mastered 


XL,  128.  Rabbi  Nahshon  is  not  the  only  Gaon  whom  the  Kabbalists  claim 
as  one  of  their  own.  Even  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni  could  not  escape 
them,  in  spite  of  his  philosophic  views ;  comp.  Steinschneider,  Arabische 
Literatur,  no,  note  6. 

1  In  his  additions  to  the  Hebrew  translation  of  Graetz's  Geschichte,  III, 
493-5". 

*  Seder  Rab  Amram,  38  a. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  159 

both  languages,  we  may  be  sure,  and  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  for  a  moment  that  Rabbi  Hai  was  desirous  of 
making  propaganda  for  Karaism  among  foreign  Jews 
ignorant  of  Aramaic. 

WORKS  ATTRIBUTED  TO  THE  GEONIM  ZEMAH,  HAI  BEN 
DAVID,  AND  HILAI. 

The  contemporary  of  Rabbi  Nahshon,  Rabbi  Zemah  ben 
Paltoi,  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  was  the  first  of  the  scholars 
of  Pumbedita  to  write  a  book,  and  this  first  Pumbeditan 
book  was  at  the  same  time  the  first  of  the  long  line  of 
Talmudic  lexicons.  The  work  "yny  is  known  to  have 
existed  as  late  as  the  sixteenth  century,  in  the  possession 
of  Rabbi  Abraham  Zacuto,  the  author  of  the  Yohasln,  who 
quotes  from  it  here  and  there.  It  is,  of  course,  astonishing 
that  Zacuto  should  be  the  only  one  known  to  have  made 
use  of  the  work,  still  more  astonishing  that  he  was  the 
only  one  to  make  mention  of  it.  Kohut's  opinion  that 
Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Jehiel  resorted  to  the  work  of  this 
predecessor  of  his  is  not  based  upon  sufficient  grounds1. 
In  view  of  all  this,  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  doubt 
as  to  the  reliability  of  Zacuto's  report.  He  may  have  come 
into  possession  of  a  Talmudic  lexicon  by  some  Zemah, 
otherwise  not  known,  whom  he  or  perhaps  the  copyists 
of  the  book,  without  taking  the  trouble  to  investigate  the 
matter,  identified  with  his  namesake,  the  Gaon  of  Pumbe- 
dita. The  restricted  number  of  quotations  from  the  lexicon 
hardly  permits  speculation  as  to  the  merits  of  the  book. 
Zacuto  tells  us  expressly  that  the  arrangement  followed 
the  alphabet.  An  interesting  feature  is  that  it  contained 
the  names  of  persons  and  places  in  the  Talmud 2. 

1  Comp.  G.  S.,  p.  294. 

2  In  the  Introduction  to  his  'Aruk,  17-19,  Kohut  has  put  together  all 
the  quotations  from  Rabbi  Zemah's  lexicon,  following  the  example  set 
by  Rapoport  and  Geiger.    Rabbi  Zemah's  explanation  of  the  oath  Jiyon 
mrt,  declared  unintelligible  by  Zacuto,  and  by  Rapoport  and  Kohut  after 
him,  is  quite  correct.     Rabbi  Zemah  observes  that  ys~.n  p  msi  'i  makes 


l6o  THE    GEONIM 

It  must  be  mentioned  that  Rabbenu  Hai  is  perhaps 
alluding  to  a  lexicographical  work  by  Rabbi  Zemah  ben 
Paltoi,  when,  in  giving  the  explanation  of  a  Talmudic 
word,  in  Harkavy,  200,  he  uses  the  expression  ~ipno  mimi 
.  .  .  "IEX1  TOS  m  no  "ipnB> — "  and  in  the  investigation  Rabbi 
Zemah  pursued,  in  which  he  made  the  supposition."  If 
he  had  been  having  a  Responsum  by  Rabbi  Zemah  in 
mind,  the  expression  used  by  Rabbi  Hai  would  be  very 
peculiar.  That  he  did  not  mean  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Hayyim, 
or  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Kafna,  is  shown  by  a  previous 
sentence,  in  which  he  gives  the  full  name,  Rabbi  Zemah 
ben  Paltoi1.  On  the  other  hand,  the  grandson  of  Rabbi 
Zemah,  Rabbi  Hezekiah  ben  Samuel,  mentions  nothing  of 
a  dictionary  by  his  grandfather,  in  his  letter  published  in 
the  /.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  401.  As  he  was  not  a  little  proud  of 
the  numerous  writings  by  his  ancestors,  it  is  not  very 
likely  that  he  would  have  forgotten  the  lexicon,  if  there 
had  been  one.  A  final  possibility  is  that  this  lexicon  of 
Rabbi  Zemah  is  nothing  but  the  explanation  of  Talmudic 
passages  for  which  he  was  asked,  and  these  are  included 
in  what  his  grandson  says :  "  And  also  in  the  days  of 
his  [Rabbi  Paltoi's]  son,  Zemah,  the  head  of  the  Academy, 
my  father's  father,  they  [the  Spanish  scholars]  sent  to  him 
asking  him  for  explanations  of  the  difficult  passages  in  the 
whole  Talmud,  so  many  that  several  donkeys  could  not 
carry  the  load."  These  words  would  seem  to  point  to  a 
comprehensive  work  by  Rabbi  Zemah  rather  than  his 
activity  as  a  Responsa  writer. 

The  superscription  reproduced  in  G.  S.,  p.  28,  from  a 
Genizah  fragment  containing  a  collection  of  Responsa, 
"These  Responsa  were  arranged  [jpn]  by  Rabbi  Zemah, 

use  of  the  oath,  because  he  lived  during  the  time  the  Temple  was 
standing,  and  being  accustomed  to  swear  "by  this  Temple,"  he  did 
not  change  the  formula  even  after  its  destruction. 

1  Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  neither  R.  Sherira  nor  his 
son  R.  Hai  refers  to  R.  Zemah  as  his  ancestor,  though  the  former's 
grandmother  was  a  daughter  of  R.  Zemah,  comp.  above,  p.  10. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  l6l 

the  head  of  the  Academy,"  might  be  interpreted  to  mean 
that  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Paltoi  (?)  had  made  a  collection 
of  Responsa.  This  inference  would  receive  support  from 
the  fact,  that,  as  is  shown  in  the  G.  S.t  pp.  20  et  seq., 
several  of  the  Responsa  attributed  to  Rabbi  Zemah  belong 
to  his  predecessors  without  a  doubt.  Thus  he  might  be 
looked  upon  as  a  collector  of  Responsa  issued  by  earlier 
Geonim.  However,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  a  Gaon 
should  have  engaged  in  the  task  of  collecting  Responsa1, 
especially  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that  the  Responsa 
Collections  that  have  reached  us  were,  in  all  likelihood, 
made  toward  the  end  of  the  Gaonate,  and  then  outside 
of  Babylonia.  Accordingly,  fpn  should  be  translated  by 
"composed,"  rather  than  "  arranged 2." 

Among  the  doubtful  Geonic  works  is  the  one  on  the 
Rabbanite  calendar,  ascribed  by  the  Karaites  (nVJlonp  ^\b, 
II,  148-51)  to  "  Hai,  the  head  of  the  Academy."  If  this 
statement  is  not  to  be  dismissed  as  a  pure  invention,  at 
least  so  much  may  be  asserted,  that  the  author  would  have 
to  be  identified  with  Rabbi  Hai,  Gaon  of  Sura,  whose 
father,  Rabbi  Nahshon,  as  was  mentioned  a  little  while 
ago,  also  wrote  upon  the  calendar,  rather  than  with  Hai 

1  Frankel,  Entwurf  einer  Geschichte  .  .  .  der  Responsen,  71-2,  misunderstood 
the  expressions  nin'pN®  or  rnaicn  used  by  the  old  authors.     It  does  not 
mean   "Responsa  Collections,"  but  simply  Responsa,  the  plural  being 
employed  because  the  correspondents  in  almost  all  cases  addressed  a 
number  of  questions  to  the  Gaon. 

2  Comp.  Zunz,  Gesammdte  Schrtften,  III,  51,  on  the  use  of  fi?n,  "to 
compile";    also  Harkavy,  84:   nos  no  ibN  mtow?,  "these  [replies  to] 
questions  addressed  to   Rabbi   Zemah."      Luzzatto,  Bet  ha-Ozar,  I,  83, 
maintains  that  Rabbi  Zemah  was  the  compiler  of  a  collection  of  Geonic 
Responsa.     He  bases  his  view  on  Mordecai,  Baba  Batra,  471,  where  the 
JIM  mas  211  m:w  royron  are  spoken  of.    But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  text  of  Mordecai  is  corrupt,  and  must  be  read  as  emended  by  Isserles, 
ad  loc.    The  old  name  for  Geonic  Responsa  was  rnforo  ruicn  (D*rr,  45), 
which  later  was  cut  down  to  mto*D  (VncN,   III,  49),  or  chiefly  rvunrn. 
The  post-Geonic  authors  speak  more  frequently  of  nanrm  m"»«J  than  of 
rnVwj  rvuiicn,  but  there  are  well-known  Responsa  Collections  by  later 
authors  that  have  appeared  in  print  under  tho  latter  title,  for  instance, 
the  pn:  p  mm  i:'rA  m^Nir  nuiujn. 

I  M 


1 62  THE    GEONIM 

ben  David,  the  successor  to  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Paltoi  in 
the  Gaonate  of  Pumbedita,  as  Harkavy  does  in  his  Additions 
to  the  Hebrew  translation  of  Graetz,  Geschichte,  III,  506. 

Muller,  in  his  Mafteah,  153,  calls  the  Sura  Gaon,  Hilai 
ben  Natronai,  the  probable  author  of  niplDB  rna/rt.  But 
this  rests  upon  a  misunderstanding.  The  words  of  Rabbi 
Hilai,  in  s"n,  47,  HDB3  pon  paj6  utnw  ITia,  do  not  refer 
to  a  Halakic  compendium  but  to  his  Responsum,  D'n,  162, 
which  he  probably  sent  to  the  same  addressee. 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  RABBI  SAADIA  IN  HALAKIC 
LITERATURE. 

As  in  many  other  fields,  so  in  the  Halakah,  Rabbi  Saadia 
was  the  most  important  author  of  the  Geonic  time.  Not 
only  did  he  enrich  the  various  departments  of  Halakic 
literature  with  numerous  contributions,  but  also  what  he 
wrote  was  so  original  that  in  many  respects  it  served  as 
a  model  for  the  succeeding  Geonim  and  later  scholars. 

His  Halakic  writings  may  be  divided  into  four  groups : 
(i)  Introduction  to  the  Talmud  and  the  Halakah ;  (2)  Tal- 
mudic  explanations ;  (3)  Codification  of  the  Rabbinic  laws ; 
and  (4)  Liturgy.  Unfortunately,  most  of  his  Halakic  works 
are  lost  to  us,  and  the  greater  part  of  what  we  possess  of 
them  still  awaits  publication. 

In  the  first  group  belongs  the  nn»  j"»  B>na,  published  by 
Professor  Schechter  in  the  Bet  Talmud,  IV,  235-44,  after  an 
Oxford  MS.,  and  reprinted  by  Muller  in  (Euvres  complets  de 
Rabbi  Saadia,  IX.  Originally  it  was  written  in  Arabic,  and 
it  contains  the  fundamental  hermeneutic  principles  applied 
to  the  Halakah  by  the  Rabbis,  its  form  being  a  commentary 
upon  the  "Thirteen  Rules  of  Rabbi  Ishmael."  Each  of 
the  thirteen  rules  is  illustrated  by  numerous  examples, 
and  at  the  same  time  all  the  variations  falling  under  the 
rule  are  elucidated.  For  instance,  the  application  of  the 
first  hermeneutic  rule,  the  "i»im  bp,  is  exemplified  by  means 
of  four  Scriptural  injunctions.  The  kw,  says  Saadia,  tells 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  163 

a  man  that  in  case  he  marries  a  second  wife,  he  has  three 
duties  of  a  husband  (Exod.  xxi.  10)  to  fulfil  toward  his 
first  wife.  But  the  law  contains  nothing  about  the  duties 
of  a  husband  who  has  but  one  wife.  These  duties  we 
derive  by  applying  the  "inirn  i>p,  and  we  infer  that  if  the 
law  puts  certain  duties  upon  a  husband  of  two  wives, 
although  the  fulfilment  of  them  is  twice  as  difficult  as 
when  he  has  only  one  wife,  how  much  more  is  he  obligated 
to  fulfil  them  when  he  has  but  one  wife. 

In  this  clear  and  intelligible  manner,  he  continues  to 
treat  of  all  the  hermeneutic  rules  in  succession.  The 
superiority  of  this  work  appears  plainly  on  comparing  it 
with  the  "  Baraita  of  the  Thirteen  Rules,"  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Sifra.  Neither  in  copiousness  of  examples,  nor  in 
lucidity  of  presentation,  can  the  latter  come  up  to  Saadia's 
work  even  remotely.  The  relation  of  this  Baraita  to  Rabbi 
Saadia's  treatise,  it  should  be  said,  has  not  yet  been  cleared 
up l.  The  Baraita,  we  know,  contains  many  old  elements, 
but  it  is  not  certain  that,  in  the  passages  in  which  Rabbi 
Saadia's  work  and  the  Baraita  are  in  agreement,  it  is  always 
the  latter  that  is  to  be  considered  the  primary  source. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Talmud  by  Rabbi  Saadia  was 
consulted  by  so  late  an  authority  as  Rabbi  Bezaleel  Ashke- 
nazi  (ab.  1609),  and  Azulai,  in  his  }T1X  Tjp,  36  b  and  68  c, 
has  published  bits  of  it,  after  Rabbi  Bezaleel's  manuscript 
works.  As  Rabbi  Bezaleel  says  expressly  that  it  was 
originally  written  in  Arabic,  there  is  no  room  left  for 
doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  supposition  made  by 
Professor  Schechter,  in  his  Saadyana,  128,  that  the  3Nna 
i>31O^K  mentioned  in  a  Genizah  fragment  is  precisely  this 
Introduction  to  the  Talmud  by  Rabbi  Saadia 2. 

1  Comp.  on  this  point  Miiller,  in  (Euvres  complete  de  R.  Saadia,  IX, 
Introduction,  23-33,  and  Hoffmann,  in  Berliner-JubelschriJtt  Hebrew 
division,  55  et  seq. 

*  Rabbi  Saadia's  'i"»n  'D  contains  matter  of  a  nature  introductory  to 
the  Talmud,  as  he  himself  mentions  expressly ;  see  Harkavy,  Saadia, 
152,  160.  The  former  passage  is  particularly  interesting.  Rabbi  Saadia, 

M  2 


164  THE    GEONIM 

Rabbi  Pethahiah,  of  Ratisbon,  who  travelled  through 
Babylonia  near  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  reports 
that  the  Jews  there  used  commentaries  on  the  Bible  and 
the  nmo  net?  by  Rabbi  Saadia.  Whether  D"E>  stands  for 
the  Mishnah,  or,  according  to  later  usage,  for  the  Talmud, 
cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  It  is  also  open  to 
doubt  whether  the  *tma  of  Rabbi  Saadia  on  certain  Talmud 
passages  which  are  mentioned  in  Geonic  literature1  are 
commentaries  on  the  Talmud  or  part  of  the  Talmud,  or 
whether  they  are  isolated  explanations  of  definite  passages 
in  the  Talmud,  which  Rabbi  Saadia,  like  many  of  the 
Geonim,  gave  in  his  Responsa  in  reply  to  inquiries.  From 
the  list  of  works  published  by  Professor  Schechter  in 
Saadyana,  79,  it  is  plain  that  Rabbi  Saadia  compiled  a 
"  Vocabulary  of  the  Mishnah."  There  is,  accordingly,  no 
reason  for  denying  him  the  authorship  of  the  Commentary 
on  JTisnn,  published  at  Jerusalem,  1907,  by  Wertheimer, 
from  a  Genizah  fragment,  under  the  title  2T  B>TVa  "iao 
pw  iTiyo.  The  epithet  t2>1Ta  is  somewhat  inaccurate,  because 
the  book  contains  no  explanations  in  the  usual  sense,  but 
only  very  brief  lexical  notes.  The  sixty-three  folios  of 
the  treatise  Berakot  are  disposed  of  in  two  small  leaves. 
However,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  JTD-O  by  K>na  before 
us  is  only  an  extract  from  a  much  more  detailed  commen- 
tary by  Rabbi  Saadia,  in  which  the  philological  notices 
alone  are  given,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  sorts  of 
matter.  This  hypothesis  gains  in  probability  from  the  fact 

with  fine  satire,  takes  the  Talmudists  of  his  time  severely  to  task  :  "  The 
reason  for  compiling  this  [chronology  of  the  Talmud]  is  that  I  have 
met  persons  who  call  themselves  Kabbis  [Rabbanites  ?],  who  have  no 
understanding  of  it,  and  who  do  not  walk  in  the  way  of  our  old  teachers, 
whose  names,  however,  are  always  upon  their  lips,  and  with  whose  food 
they  nourish  themselves."  These  words  show  not  only  that  Rabbi  Saadia 
was  creating  a  new  thing  in  this  field,  but  also  that  he  did  it  in 
opposition  to  the  Zeitgeist  so-called. 

1  If  'cne  may  be  taken  literally,  then  Rabbi  Saadia  must  have  written 
commentaries  at  least  upon  Pesafnm,  Sotah,  Bdba  Mezia,  and  Baba  Batra ; 
comp.  Saadyana,  59-61,  and  Albargeloni,  nvracn  'c,  53. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  165 

that  the  first  Mishnah l  of  the  treatise  is  summed  up  in 
such  wise  that  it  may  serve  as  an  introduction  to  the 
discussions  following  in  the  Gemara.  It  cannot  be  assumed 
that  Rabbi  Saadia  treated  only  the  first  Miahnah  in  this 
thoroughgoing  manner,  and  not  also  the  rest  of  the  treatise. 
This  odd  contrast  between  the  first  Mishncth  and  the  others 
would  be  fully  explained  by  the  supposition  that  we  have 
only  an  extract  before  us.  The  epitomiser  contented  himself 
with  reproducing  verbatim  the  first  paragraph  of  the  book 
of  which  he  was  preparing  an  abstract;  thereafter  he 
took  the  shortest  way  possible. 

Rabbi  Saadia's  literary  activity  was  most  fruitful  in  the 
department  of  codification.  Unfortunately,  only  scant 
remains  have  been  preserved,  but  at  least  the  titles  of  his 
works  are  cited  by  a  number  of  old  authors  and  in  old 
lists  of  books.  This  enables  us  to  assert  definitely  that  at 
least  the  following  ten  parts  of  the  Jewish  law  were  codified 
by  Rabbi  Saadia2:  iw;  mjnap;  nnas?;  jnpB;  nwno;  nicrv; 
ruiro  nuno ;  manoi  ntrnp ;  mny ;  mnm  nsim  Of  these  ten 
books,  but  one  has  been  preserved,  the  first-named,  "the 
book  of  the  law  of  inheritance,"  which  was  published  in 
the  ninth  volume  of  Saadia's  collected  works.  Fragments 
have  come  down  to  us  of  two  or  three  codes  besides. 

The  student  need  not  be  cautioned  against  judging 
Rabbi  Saadia's  achievements  as  a  codifier  by  the  insig- 
nificant remains  enumerated,  the  more  as  it  appears  that 
the  niETVn  ">QD  was  his  initial  effort  in  the  code  depart- 
ment3. Despite  its  shortcomings,  the  book  nevertheless 

1  Also  the  three  passages  1 1  b,  15  a,  and  18  b,  are  more  than  mere 
verbal  explanations. 

8  Comp.  Steinschneider,  Arabische  Literatur,  48-50,  and  Dr.  Poznariski's 
"  Schechter's  Saadyana,"  and  also  his  remarks  in  the  Orienlalische  Litteratur- 
Zeitung,  VII,  306-7  ;  to  which  is  to  be  added  Rabbi  Saadia's  treatise  on 
rvyi,  published  later  in  J.  Q.  R.,  XIX,  1 19.  Numerous  citations  from  the 
'moan  'c  are  to  be  found  in  Albargeloni's  work  of  the  same  name. 

3  This  view,  expressed  by  Miiller  in  the  Introduction  to  his  edition 
of  this  book,  gains  in  probability  from  what  is  said,  p.  166,  below,  on 
the  relation  of  the  book  to  Rabbi  Saadia's  other  book,  the  jnpcn  'D. 


I 66  THE    GEONIM 

gave  scope  for  the  display  of  Rabbi  Saadia's  originality. 
Not  only  is  it  the  first  Rabbinic  book  in  Arabic,  but  also 
in  plan  and  execution  it  reveals  the  influence  of  Greek- 
Arabic  discipline 1.  Instead  of  ranging  the  decisions  of 
the  Miahnah  and  the  Talmud  next  to  each  other,  Saadia 
has  presented  the  Biblical-Rabbinic  laws  of  inheritance 
in  an  order  quite  independent  of  their  sources.  This  book 
of  his  thus  became  in  some  respects  the  model  of  the 
Geonim  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni  and  Rabbenu  Hai  for 
their  codifications,  and  it  would  not  be  going  too  far  to 
assert  that  Saadia  exercised  some  influence  on  Maimonides' 
code.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  fragments  of  the 
jnpan  ISD,  published  by  Professor  Schechter  in  Saadyana, 
37,  40-41,  show  that  in  this  code  Rabbi  Saadia  pursued 
an  entirely  different  system  from  that  employed  in  the 
nttPHYi  ISD.  It  is  not  impossible  that  Rabbi  Saadia's 
method  of  not  mentioning  the  Talmudic  sources  from  which 
he  drew  gave  offence,  as  similar  action  by  Maimonides 
in  his  Tad  aroused  opposition.  Saadia  may  have  been 
led  thereby  to  change  his  method. 

In  the  domain  of  liturgy,  we  cannot  here  give  attention 
to  the  numerous  prayers  which  Rabbi  Saadia  composed. 
We  are  interested  in  the  prayer-book  which  he  compiled 
at  the  request  of  the  Egyptian  congregations.  Unfortu- 
nately, it  still  awaits  publication,  and  we  are,  therefore, 
not  yet  in  a  position  to  pass  final  judgment  upon  it.  So 
much  is  certain,  however,  that  Rabbi  Saadia  did  not,  like 
his  predecessor  in  the  Gaonate  of  Sura,  Rab  Amram, 
execute  his  task  according  to  the  Babylonian  ritual,  but 
according  to  the  ritual  of  his  native  country  Egypt. 
Of  course,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  his  Seder  was  not 
without  effect  on  the  Babylonian  liturgy.  Rabbenu  Hai 
(Harkavy,  97)  states  explicitly  that  certain  changes  in  the 
liturgy  of  his  country  were  due  to  the  influence  exercised 
by  Rabbi  Saadia's  Seder.  Although  the  Egyptian  liturgy 

1  Comp.  Steinschneider,  Arabische  Literatur,  48,  end,  and  Orient.  Litt.- 
Zeilung,  VII,  206-8. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  167 

is  not  free  from  Babylonian  influences,  yet,  on  the  whole, 
it  is  an  offshoot  of  the  Palestinian  ritualistic  system. 
Whether  the  kinship  that  exists  between  the  Seder,  of 
Rabbi  Saadia  and  the  Order  of  Prayers  by  Maimonides, 
which  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere *,  is  attributable  to 
the  sole  circumstance  that  both  authorities  were  concerned 
with  the  needs  of  the  Egyptian  Jews,  is  more  than 
questionable.  It  is  very  probable  that  Maimonides  was 
intimately  acquainted  with  the  Seder  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  and 
permitted  himself  to  follow  it  in  many  respects. 

Rabbi  Saadia's  place  in  the  development  of  Halakic 
literature  can  be  summed  up  in  this  way :  The  many- 
sided  scholar  endeavoured  to  free  Halakic  literature  from 
its  exclusiveness.  His  Introductions  and  his  methodo- 
logical works  tended  towards  a  historic-critical  understand- 
ing of  the  Talmud,  while  as  a  codifier  his  aim  was  to 
arrange  the  Rabbinic  law  in  a  unified  logical  system. 

THE  THREE  GREAT  SUCCESSORS  OF  RABBI  SAADIA. 

The  last  three  Geonim,  Rabbi  Sherira,  Rabbi  Samuel 
ben  Hofni,  and  the  son  of  the  former,  Rabbi  Hai,  all  stand 

1  Z.H.B.,  IX,  104-7.  After  an  examination  of  the  MS.,  which  I  gave 
it  later,  even  though  it  was  cursory,  I  do  not  entertain  the  slightest 
doubt  that  Rabbi  Saadia's  ITC  embodies  the  Egyptian  ritual.  The  Genizah 
fragments  comprise  only  a  few  insignificant  tattered  pieces  of  the  y'to 
and  very  large  pieces  of  Rabbi  Saadia's  Seder,  further  evidence  of  the 
assumption  that  it  was  destined  for  and  went  to  Egypt.  To  the  liturgical 
decisions  by  Rabbi  Saadia  given  by  Muller,  in  (Euvres  compkts  de  R.  Saadia, 
IX,  150  et  seq.,  most  of  which  are  probably  derived  from  the  Seder, 
a  quotation  is  to  be  added  occurring  in  Ibn  Gabai,  spy  njAin,  the  section 
on  TOWO  ifjcn.  Ibn  Gabai,  it  must  be  confessed,  does  not  seem  to  have 
taken  it  direct  from  Rabbi  Saadia.  The  anonymous  commentator  of  the 
German  Prayer  Book,  printed  at  Trino,  in  1525,  was  acquainted  with 
Rabbi  Saadia's  Seder.  He  quotes  it  in  his  commentary  on  the  Haggadah 
on  the  verse  wuyi.  The  passage  quoted  by  him  is  not  found  in  the 
Oxford  MS.  of  the  Seder,  but  it  occurs  in  the  Haggadah  according  to 
the  Yemen  ritual,  in  the  1*0,  293,  in  a  MS.  of  the  Haggadah  according 
to  the  German  ritual,  of  the  year  1329,  in  the  possession  of  the  Jewish 
Theological  Seminary,  and  was  known  to  the  author  of  the  Vnjrt  'o,  comp. 
,  52,  ed.  Hoffmann. 


I 68  THE    GEONIM 

under  the  influence  of  Rabbi  Saadia,  manifesting  itself 
peculiarly  in  the  case  of  each.  While  Rabbi  Samuel 
followed  the  example  of  Rabbi  Saadia  in  the  field  of  philo- 
sophy and  Bible  exegesis,  as  well  as  in  his  other  interests, 
Rabbi  Sherira  and  his  son  Rabbi  Hai  remained  true  to 
the  old  traditions  of  the  Geonim.  Of  philosophy  the  latter 
would  none,  and  the  study  of  the  Bible  was  a  subordinate 
pursuit.  To  their  core  they  were  Talmudists,  and  Talmudists 
only.  But  in  their  capacity  and  work  as  Talmudists  they 
could  deny  the  influence  of  Rabbi  Saadia  as  little  as  Rabbi 
Samuel  ben  Hofni. 

A  work  entitled  D^DD  nbo  is  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Sherira, 
but  the  statement  is  rather  doubtful.  In  his  Introduction 
to  his  Menorat  ka-Maor,  Rabbi  Isaac  Aboab  quotes  a  state- 
ment of  Rabbi  Sherira's  from  DnnD  fbjD1.  What  Aboab 
meant  was  probably  that  he  had  taken  the  words  of  the 
Gaon  from  the  book  Dnno  fbso  by  Rabbenu  Nissim.  Like 
his  Maftea/t,  this  book  by  Rabbenu  Nissim  is  also  made 
up  in  large  part  of  Geonic  Responsa2,  and  of  these  Aboab 
made  use  in  other  places,  too. 

It  is  equally  doubtful  whether  the  *pliM  by  Rabbi  Sherira, 
cited  several  times  by  Rabbi  Isaac  of  Vienna  in  his  book 
jmr  "UK3,  is  an  independent  work,  somewhat  of  the  cha- 
racter of  a  commentary  on  several  treatises  of  the  Talmud, 
or  explanations  of  Talmudic  passages  in  the  form  of 
Responsa. 

1  The  correct  reading  is  DTTIC,  not  we. 

a  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Responsum  of  Rabbi  Hai,  in  the  appendix 
to  Rabbi  Sherira's  Letter,  ed.  Mayence,  64-5,  which  likewise  was  in- 
corporated verbatim  in  Rabbenu  Nissim's  cnrc  'm .  Comp.  also  Harkavy, 
in  reran,  V,  53 :  Briill,  Jahrbucher,  IX,  121 ;  and  G.  S.,  p.  273. 

3  II,  168  a  ;  Baba  Kama,  72  ;  Baba  Batra,  40.  The  Geonic  sources  used 
by  Rabbi  Isaac,  the  author  of  the  i"w,  which  are  of  great  importance  for 
the  valuation  of  Geonic  literature,  have  not  yet  been  exploited  sufficiently. 
Wellesz,  in  Monatsschrift,  XLVIII,  369-71,  is  neither  exhaustive  nor  com- 
plete. For  instance,  the  Sheeltot  quotations  from  I,  159  b,  II,  50  and  163, 
are  missing;  also  Rabbi Hanina  Gaon.  I,  209;  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Hananiah, 
I,  i76b,  and  several  others.  Vow,  II,  76,  seems  to  indicate  that  Rabbi 
Sherira  wrote  a  commentary  on  Baba  Baira,  comp.  also  Steinschneider, 
Arab.  Lit.,  98. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  169 

Rabbi  Sherira's  reputation  as  one  of  the  most  prominent 
authors  of  the  Geonic  period  rests  upon  a  much  surer  basis 
than  is  afforded  by  these  doubtful  productions — upon  his 
celebrated  Letter  to  the  scholars  of  Kairwan. 

The  Letter  is  a  reply  to  a  question  addressed  to  Rabbi 
Sherira  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Mishnah  and  the  other 
Halakic  collections  by  Tannaim,  and  as  to  the  heads  of 
the  Academies  during  the  time  of  the  Saboraim  and  Geonim, 
together  with  a  number  of  other  points  connected  with 
these  two  cardinal  matters.  The  lasting  value  of  his  epistle 
for  us  lies  in  the  information  Rabbi  Sherira  gives  about 
the  post-Talmudic  scholars.  On  this  period  he  is  practically 
the  only  source  we  have,  and  his  report  is  all  the  more 
important  as  it  is  partly  based  upon  documents  in  the 
archives  of  the  Geonim.  But  we  should  be  doing  Rabbi 
Sherira  injustice  if  we  thought  of  him  merely  as  a  chrono- 
logist.  The  theories  which  he  unfolds,  in  lapidary  style, 
regarding  the  origin  of  the  Mishnah,  its  relation  to  the 
Tosefta  and  the  Baraitot,  on  the  beginnings  and  develop- 
ment of  the  Talmud,  and  many  other  points  important  in 
the  history  of  the  Talmud  and  its  problems,  stamp  Rabbi 
Sherira  as  one  of  the  most  distinguished  historians,  in 
fact,  it  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say,  the  most  distinguished 
historian,  of  literature  among  the  Jews,  not  only  of  an- 
tiquity, but  also  in  the  middle  ages,  and  during  a  large 
part  of  modern  times.  But  the  fine  historical  percep- 
tions which  he  displays  in  literary  criticism,  and  his 
searching  investigation  of  the  problems  he  encounters 
are  almost  unthinkable  in  the  Geonic  period  without  the 
preliminary  work,  or  rather  the  personal  influence,  of 
Rabbi  Saadia1. 

By  far  more  direct  and  tangible  was  the  influence  of 
Rabbi  Saadia  upon  the  work  of  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni, 
who  was  a  serious  competitor  of  Rabbi  Saadia  in  point 
of  versatility  and  productiveness.  He  cannot,  however, 

1  Comp.  the  observation  by  Rabbi  Saadia  given  above,  p.  163,  n.  a. 


170  THE    GEONIM 

vie  with  Rabbi  Saadia  in  originality.  The  Halakic  works 
of  Rabbi  Samuel,  some  of  them,  perhaps,  nothing  but 
works  of  Rabbi  Saadia  recast1,  were  written  in  Arabic 
like  those  of  his  predecessor,  and  they  share  the  fate  of 
the  latter,  too,  in  that  they  are  completely  lost  save  a  few 
fragments. 

The  Genizah  fragments  have  made  us  acquainted  with 
a  large  number  of  titles  of  books,  as  many  as  forty,  all 
to  be  added  to  the  Halakic  writings  of  Rabbi  Samuel 2. 
It  is  fair  to  assume  that  these  are  not  independent  works  3, 
but  rather  parts  of  a  great  code.  WTB^H  "Commands," 
by  Rabbi  Samuel,  may  have  been  the  general  title,  which 
was  accompanied  by  a  number  of  sub-titles  for  the  various 
divisions  of  the  code.  The  gigantic  compass  of  the  book 
may  readily  be  judged  from  the  rwu  njJP,  "  The  Portal 
of  Benedictions,"  which  was  published  by  Weiss  in  the 
Bet  Talmud,  II,  377-86.  This  division,  doubtless  an  insig- 
nificant portion  of  the  code,  exceeds  in  size  the  correspond- 
ing parts  in  Maimonides'  Yad  and  Caro's  ShuUan  'Aruk 
together,  and  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  has  not  been 
preserved  in  complete  form.  Probably  this  prolixity  is 
a  partial  reason  why  both  the  Arabic  original  and  the 
Hebrew  translation,  which  were  in  the  hands  of  the  German 
authors  as  late  as  the  fourteenth  century4,  have  dropped 
into  total  oblivion. 

Of  the  other  Talmudic  writings  of  Rabbi  Samuel,  we 
should  mention  a  commentary  on  Yebamot,  listed  in  a 

1  Comp.  Schechter,  Saadyana,  43. 

3  Comp.  Steinschneider,  Arab.  Lit.,  108-10,  and  Poznanski,  Orientalische 
Litter atur-Zeitung,  VII,  313-15.  In  the  recently  published  nunn  nn 
(Bernard  Drachman,  New  York,  1908),  53,  the  nvnyn  'c  (on  witnesses?) 
by  Rabbi  Samuel  is  mentioned. 

3  A  supposition  made  by  Rapoport,  Biography  of  Rabbi  Hai,  note  8. 

4  The  author  of  fcno«  'DO  D'Eip1?,  published  in  Coronel's  'yip  'n,  quotes 
Rabbi  Samuel's  onyizj,  and  also  the  author  of  mcic«n  'c,  living  at  the 
same  time.      Some   of  the  decisions  by  Rabbi  Samuel,  reproduced  in 
Miiller,  Mafteah,  were  not  Responsa  originally,  they  are  taken  from  his 
code. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  171 

catalogue,  /.  Q.  R.,  XVI,  411,  and  an  Introduction  to  the 
Talmud,  of  which  a  considerable  piece  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Taylor-Schechter  Collection. 

The  influence  of  Kabbi  Saadia  is  patent  in  the  nwu  ''"W, 
especially  in  the  grouping  of  the  material  and  in  the  style 
of  presentation.  It  is  altogether  likely  that  Rabbi  Samuel 
used  the  work  of  his  predecessor  as  a  foundation  for  his 
Introduction  to  the  Talmud  as  well  as  for  his  Code. 

Rabbi  Hai,  the  last  of  the  Geonim,  who  as  a  Talmudist 
may  perhaps  be  called  the  first  of  them,  and  who  in  respect 
of  Talmudic  scholarship,  profundity  of  conception,  and 
incisive  judgment,  is  excelled  by  none,  not  even  by  Rabbi 
Saadia,  is  known  chiefly  for  his  numerous  Responsa.  How- 
ever, he  is  the  author  of  independent  works  on  subjects 
in  every  department  of  the  Talmud,  too. 

Of  his  commentaries  on  the  Talmud  nothing  has  been 
preserved,  though  it  is  certain  that  he  expounded  several 
treatises.  Quotations  from  his  commentary  on  Berakot  are 
to  be  found  in  Ibn  Gajat,  SJ>"B>,  1, 14 ;  Albargeloni,  DTiyn  ISD, 
288 ;  in  the  MS.  of  the  nuBTi1  of  the  RaBeD ;  and  in  rr'atn, 
24.  Rabbi  Solomon  Ibn  Adret  makes  copious  use  thereof 
in  his  commentary  on  Berakot.  We  may  also  be  sure  of 
his  having  composed  a  commentary  on  Shabbat 2,  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  h"l ,  59,  and  that  the  expression  ""C^iTM 
wm  in  this  passage  does  not  mean  an  explanation  made  by 
Rabbi  Hai  in  one  of  his  Responsa  is  evident  from  the  word 
nmeTi  that  follows  soon  after.  It  is  obvious  that  in  this 
Responsum  a  difference  is  made  between  fc^Ta  and  maiBTi. 
It  is  questionable  whether  Rabbi  Hai  wrote  a  commentary 
on  the  treatise  Hagigah.  Albargeloni,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  book  Yezirah,  cites  explanations  of  passages  in  this 


1  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Alexander  Marx  for  calling  my  attention  to 
these  jrutEn  against  Rabbi  Zerahiah  Gerondi ;  they  are  in  the  Sulzberger 
Collection  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America. 

3  Comp.  G.  S.,  p.  56,  and  'Aruk,  s.v.  Ntco  p«,  which  quotes  Rabbi  Hai's 
explanation  of  this  expression  from  Shabbat  and  not  from  Kelim  I 


172  THE    GEONIM 

treatise1  five  times,  once  (p.  26)  as  wan  'a3,  and  again  as 
penn  px  'aa  rcrpaa. 

What  is  certain  is  that  the  view  of  Weiss,  Dor,  IV,  187, 
cannot  be  correct,  when  he  holds  that  whenever  the  author 
of  the  'Aruk  quotes  the  words  of  Rabbi  Hai  with  the  intro- 
ductory formula  en^a  he  had  a  commentary  of  the  Gaon 
before  him.  It  is  curious  that  Weiss  should  have  dropped 
into  the  incorrect  statement  that  Rabbi  Nathan,  s.v.  HitD^N, 
was  quoting  Rabbi  Hai's  commentary  on  Kiddushin. 
The  words  pBTipl  tnna  Yaai  show  plainly  that  Rabbi  Hai's 
explanation  could  not  have  had  a  place  in  a  commentary 
on  Kiddushin.  In  such  a  case  he  would  have  had  to  say 
ppnaai.  Indeed,  some  of  the  explanations  of  Rabbi  Hai 
introduced  in  the  'Aruk  with  SPTa  are  found  in  Responsa. 
For  instance,  that  s.v.  TTin  riTini  is  literally  in  Harkavy, 
pp.  128-9.  Likewise,  Rabbi  Hai's  authorship  of  the  brief 
commentary  on  the  Order  Teharot  of  the  Mishnah  seems 
to  me  very  dubious.  My  reasons  against  the  prevailing 
assumption  that  this  commentary  ascribed  to  him  is  actually 
his,  are  the  following :  Rabbenu  Hai,  like  many  other  Geo- 
nim,  did  not  consider  it  beneath  his  dignity  to  give  short 
linguistic  explanations  of  Talmudic  passages,  when  he  was 
asked  for  them.  We  have,  indeed,  a  large  number  of 
such  by  Rabbi  Hai  in  various  places  in  the  Responsa 
Collection  edited  by  Harkavy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  a  Gaon,  especially  a  scholar  like 
Rabbenu  Hai,  who  was  mainly  concerned  about  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  Halakah,  should  have  composed  a 
commentary  on  a  most  difficult  part  of  the  Miahnah,  without 
making  the  slightest  contribution  to  our  actual  knowledge 
of  it.  The  explanation  offered  by  Weiss  for  this  peculiar 
fact  can  hardly  be  taken  seriously.  He  maintains  that  as 
this  Order  of  the  Mishnah  was  studied  only  by  great 
scholars,  it  required  nothing  but  linguistic  elucidations ; 

1  Probably  it  refers  to  a  comprehensive  Responsum  on  the  difficult 
Haggadic  parts  of  the  second  section  of  this  treatise.  Comp.  G.  S., 
P-  273- 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  173 

the  matter  itself  contained  therein  needed  none.  In  other 
words,  Rabbi  Hai  might  presuppose  in  his  readers  an 
intelligent  appreciation  of  the  most  difficult  parts  of  the 
Halakah,  but  not  acquaintance  with  such  words  as  ^DBD, 
"ina,  V3\o,  and  many  similar  terms.  They  occur  frequently 
in  the  Talmud,  yet  Rabbenu  Hai  must  define  them  for  his 
great  scholars  1  There  are  other  circumstances  that  militate 
against  Rabbi  Hai's  authorship.  In  this  commentary  on 
Teharot,  Greek  equivalents  for  certain  words  are  not 
infrequently  cited,  and  we  are  certain  that  Rabbi  Hai 
understood  no  Greek  \  The  numerous  quotations  from 
the  Yerushalmi  also  testify  against  Rabbi  Hai's  author- 
ship. Though  he  does  now  and  again  make  references  to 
the  Yerushalmi  elsewhere,  the  frequency  with  which  it  is 
done  in  this  commentary  arouses  suspicion.  Moreover, 
not  only  is  the  Yerushalmi  drawn  upon  freely,  but  also 
contemporary  Palestinian  custom  is  cited  (Kelim,  XXV,  3), 
which  hardly  fits  in  with  our  notion  of  Rabbi  Hai.  Though 
Rabbi  Saadia  and  Rabbi  Nahshon  are  named  in  the  com- 
mentary (Kelim,  XXVIII,  3),  Rabbi  Sherira  never  is,  which 
would  be  rather  curious  in  a  work  by  Rabbi  Hai.  Also 
Rabbi  Hai  never  speaks  of  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim  as 
JT6w;  he  calls  them  nniETi,  while  in  the  commentary 
m^NB>  is  the  term  constantly  employed.  And  what  ex- 
planation can  be  given  of  the  fact  that  the  author  of  the 
'Aruk  quotes  it  seventy  times  without  once  mentioning 
the  name  of  Rabbi  Hai 2.  In  view  of  all  this,  Rabbi  Hai's 

1  The  explanation  of  the  word  sophist  is  quoted  by  Rabbi  Hai,  as  we 
learn  in  Harkavy's  Introduction,  25,  note,  from  a  work  by  .Alfarabi ! 
His  ignorance  of  Greek  is  evinced  also  in  his  remark  on  caiiTN,  Harkavy, 
196-7.  In  another  Responsum,  1.  c.,  23,  he  says  with  regard  to  the  names 
of  certain  fish  in  the  Talmud  :  jm  ]»Y3O  i:«  f  m  p  »:v  jvri  j*o  pin  jrw  tai ! 
This  would  seem  sufficient  to  refute  Weiss'  statement  that  Rabbi  Hai 
understood  Greek. 

3  Kohut,  in  his  Introduction,  14,  maintains  that  Rabbi  Nathan,  s.  y. 
nD,  ascribes  the  commentary  on  Teharot  to  Rabbenu  Hai,  and  calls  it  -co 
p*u.  But  if  this  passage  proves  anything,  it  is  that  Rabbi  Nathan  did  not 
consider  Rabbi  Hai  the  author,  inasmuch  as  he  never  calls  him  anything 
but  p*ert. 


174  THE 

authorship  of  the  commentary  is,  to  say  the  least,  very 
doubtful. 

The  codifications  by  Rabbi  Hai  encountered  a  more 
favourable  fate  than  his  commentaries.  Following  the 
example  of  Rabbi  Saadia  probably,  he  wrote  them  in 
Arabic,  but  only  the  Hebrew  translations  have  been  pre- 
served, and  they  only  in  part.  Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Reuben 
translated l  Rabbi  Hai's  book  On  Sales  as  early  as  the  year 
1078,  giving  it  the  title  "DKO  npon  IQD.  It  has  been  printed 
and  published  a  number  of  times.  To  this  book  with  its 
sixty  gates  are  added  three  comparatively  short  treatises 
on  the  law  of  pledges,  patron  13D ;  the  law  of  conditions, 
»DBB>O  ;  and  the  law  of  loan  and  sale,  niwSn  »DBPD 
.  A  second  work  of  importance  by  Rabbi  Hai  in  the 
same  field  is  his  work  on  oaths,  of  the  Hebrew  translation 
of  which,  niyDE>  "Hyt^,  we  also  have  a  printed  edition.  Of 
these  two  works  there  is  a  metrical  version,  which,  however, 
does  not  own  Rabbi  Hai  as  its  author,  the  statement  of  the 
printed  editions  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  These 
two  works  by  Rabbi  Hai  are  to  be  classed  among  the  most 
excellent  achievements  in  the  department  of  Rabbinic  code 
literature.  As  Rabbi  Hai  treats  only  certain  portions  of 
the  Rabbinic  law,  he  naturally  goes  into  detail,  without, 
however,  dropping  into  the  longwindedness  of  which  his 
father-in-law,  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni,  is  guilty.  The 
logical  development  of  the  subjects  treated  is  presented  in 
a  clear  and  comprehensive  way,  and  the  systematic  grouping 
is  masterly.  The  13ED1  npnn  IDD  is  to  this  day  the  best 
exposition  of  the  Rabbinic  law  of  sales  with  all  its  essen- 
tial branches.  Equally,  his  nijnatr  nyt?  shows  the  cunning 
of  the  great  systematiser  and  the  acumen  of  the  great 
jurist.  In  the  first-mentioned  book,  XLI,  77  a,  he  refers  to 
his  work,  2  Sinn  "nan,  which  seems  to  be  lost.  Perhaps  the 
treatise  niNl^n  'DBIPO  is  nothing  but  a  chapter  of  this  book. 

1  On  the  translations  of  Rabbenu  Hai's  works,  comp.  Steinschneider, 
Arabische  Literatur,  99  et  seq. 

2  Comp.  Briill,  Jahrbiicher,  IX,  120. 


THE    IIALAKIC    LITERATURE  175 

Among  the  lost  works  in  codification  by  Rabbi  Hai  there 
is  one  on  IJTm  niDN,  arranged,  like  the  other,  in  "gates," 
which  is  cited  by  some  old  authorities l,  and  also  a  treatise 
on  the  prerogatives2  of  the  owners  of  adjoining  possessions, 
nmm  Mention  is  made,  besides,  of  Rabbi  Hai's  p^an  niabn. 
This  may  have  been  an  extract  from  his  Seder3,  which 
probably,  like  the  Orders  of  Prayer  of  his  predecessors, 
contained  the  prayers  and  the  Halakot  bearing  upon  them. 
The  Seder  seems  to  be  lost  irretrievably,  and  nothing  can  be 
conjectured  about  it,  except  perhaps  this  one  thing,  that  it 
may  have  been  put  together  either  for  the  congregations 
of  the  Crimea  or  for  those  of  Byzantium.  At  all  events, 
the  Jews  of  those  regions  had  a  tradition  about  having 
received  a  prayer-book  from  the  Geonim4,  and  as  neither 
Rab  Am  ram's  nor  Rabbi  Saadia's  could  have  been  meant, 
Rabbi  Hai's  naturally  suggests  itself.  One  other  circum- 
stance should  be  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  Seder  of 
Rabbi  Hai.  He  himself  reports  (Harkavy,  105,  bottom) 
that  young  men  from  Constantinople  studied  the  Talmud 
under  him,  and  it  may  have  been  at  their  instance  that  he 
arranged  a  Seder. 

A  Halakic  work  by  Rabbi  Hai,  his  Book  of  Documents, 
was  found  recently  among  the  Genizah  fragments.  It  con- 
tains twenty-eight  forms  for  drawing  up  documents,  together 
with  brief  directions.  Dr.  Harkavy,  who  publishes  four  of 
these  documents  in  the  Hebrew  Journal  ruoan,  III,  46-50  5, 

1  Rapoport  in  his  biography  of  Rabbi  Hai,  note  ai,  refers  to  a  quotation 
from  a  work  of  this  sort.     However,  traces  of  it  can  be  shown  to  exist 
in  several  authors.     Comp.  DTIE,   17  b  and   17  c  (?),  and   the   index   to 
authors  in  Vn*air,  ed.  Buber. 

2  Not  boundary  disputes,  as  Steinschneider,  Arabitche  Literatur,    roo, 
says. 

8  In  VrVaip,  267,  end  of  paragraph,  «.vn  '-\  nco  means  his  Seder ;  the 
author  applies  the  same  word  to  Rab  Amram's  Seder  :  ncca  aro  cio?  ail. 
Buber's  emendation,  137,  moa  for  ricoa  is  superfluous.  Other  references 
to  Rabbenu  Hai's  Seder  in  ^n'asj  are  264  and  294.  Comp.  also  Stein- 
schneider, Arabische  Literatur,  102. 

4  Comp.  the  Hebrew  monthly,  Vocwn,  I,  147. 

6  The  concluding  sentence  of  the  tree  B3,  48,  which  Harkavy  could 


176  THE    GEONIM 

ascribes  the  book  to  the  Gaon  Rabbi  Hai  ben  David.  The 
reasons  for  such  ascription  were  inadequate  to  begin  with  l, 
and  they  have  now  been  nullified  by  another  Genizah 
fragment,  come  to  hand  in  the  meantime,  wherein  Rabbi 
Hai  ben  Sherira  is  explicitly  called  the  author  2. 

Rabbi  Hai,  like  his  father  Rabbi  Sherira,  and  his  father- 
in-law  Rabbi  Samuel,  is  unmistakably  under  the  influence 
of  Rabbi  Saadia.  This  influence  is  betrayed  plainly  by  the 
arrangement  of  his  works  in  codification.  The  interests  of 
Rabbi  Hai  centred  largely  in  the  civil  law.  His  independent 
works  belong  almost  exclusively  to  this  domain.  Well  aware 
that  his  acute  analysis  of  certain  legal  discussions  might  be 
applied  in  dishonest  ways,  he  tries  to  guard  against  abuse 
in  the  following  words  at  the  end  of  his  rnyus?  lnj?B>: 
"And  if  an  interested  party  should  derive  arguments 
from  this  presentation  to  twist  the  words  and  win  his 
cause,  he  will  bring  evil  down  upon  himself.  I  am 
innocent  before  my  Creator,  for  I  have  composed  this 
work  only  for  those  who  walk  in  the  straight  path,  to 
understand  how  to  give  just  decisions.  .  .  .  The  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  he,  will  be  my  avenger,  that  the  readers 
of  my  book  use  it  in  fear  of  God  and  in  truth,  and  also  the 
Lord,  before  whom  all  hidden  things  are  manifest,  will 
espouse  the  cause  of  my  innocence,  as  it  is  written  :  '  As 
for  such  as  turn  aside  unto  their  crooked  ways,  the  Lord 
shall  lead  them  forth  with  the  workers  of  iniquity,  but 
peace  shall  be  upon  Israel.'  " 

not  explain,  must  be  read  as  follows  :  pcb  (frf)  =»  )  jb  J'lrro  (j:«i  =  )  jw 


1  Dr.  Harkavy's  argument,  FyoNn,  V,  152-6,  that  this  nrrairn  'D  must 
be  older  than  Rabbi  Saadia's,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  less  comprehensive, 
cannot  be  taken  seriously.     The  same  logic  would  make  Rabbi  Samuel, 
the  author  of  rrvya  rftro,   older  than   Albargeloni,   the   latter  treating 
seventy-three  documents  in  his  work,  the  former  only  fifty,  and  yet 
Rabbi  Samuel  lived  six  hundred  years  after  Albargeloni. 

2  Comp.  Wertheimer,  D^IDW  'uj,  III,  Introduction,  1-3. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  177 

ANONYMOUS  CODES  OF  THE  GEONIC  TIME. 

The  transition  from  the  works  of  individual  Geonim 
to  the  collective  Responsa  compendiums  is  formed  by  a 
number  of  writings,  most  of  them  originating  near  the 
end  of  the  Geonic  period,  which  are  composites  made  up 
of  Eesponsa  and  one  or  another  of  the  kinds  of  works 
mentioned  above.  At  the  head  of  them  is  the  D^wn  "HD 
DWiONl,  written  probably  in  the  year  885,  which  has  come 
down  to  us  in  several  recensions.  Its  purpose  is  methodo- 
logical as  well  as  chronological.  It,  therefore,  contains 
a  chain  of  traditions  from  Moses  until  Rabbi  Judah,  the 
compiler  of  the  Mishnah,  an  array  of  data  about  the 
Amoraim  and  Saboraim,  and  also  a  number  of  methodo- 
logical rules  for  the  use  of  the  Talmud,  especially  its 
application  to  the  decision  of  practical  cases. 

The  recensions  at  present  available  are  such  a  medley 
that  it  would  be  unfair  to  charge  any  writer  with  having 
perpetrated  it1.  Obviously,  the  text  was  badly  used  by 
glossators  and  copyists.  In  G.  S.,  p.  322,  proof  is  adduced 
showing  that  a  piece  of  the  DHN11»N1  D'wn  'D  had  been  taken 
verbatim  from  a  Responsum  by  Rab  Amram.  This  suggests 
the  conjecture  that  the  rest  of  the  little  volume  is  made  up 
partly  of  Geonic  Responsa,  partly  of  the  niyioc?  current  in 
the  Academies.  These  "  Traditions  "  are  mentioned  by 
Rabbi  Saadia  in  two  passages  in  his  commentary  on 
Berakot2.  His  references  to  them  give  us  no  specific 
notion  of  their  character,  but  the  word  'fm  shows  that 
they  were  in  writing  and  probably  consisted  of  old 

1  The  Taiinai in  and  Amoraim  are  mixed  together  confusedly. 

2  6  a  (perhaps  a  gloss)  and  12  a.     What  Rabbi  Saadia  tells  us  of  these 
rnyoo  in  the  latter  passage,  called  an  enigma  by  the  editor,  seems  to 
me  an  intelligible  remark,  only  it  has  happened  in  the  wrong  place. 
It  refers  to  Berakot,  37  a,  and  puts  the  question,  how  Rabbi  Akiba  came 
to  use  the  words  -\i  -raw  rtn»  to  his  teacher  Rabban  Gamaliel,  unbecoming 
words  according  to  Baba  Batra,  158  b;  he  should  have  said  "p  TaiN  irrm?. 
Accordingly,  we  should  read  TDN  im  w^i,  instead  of  the  meaningless 
ION  iny:  '2i  iNVi. 

I  N 


178  THE    GEONIM 

explanations  of  difficult  passages  in  the  Talmud  *.  Eabbenu 
Hai,  quoted  in  £>V3,  ed.  Luncz,  XII,  320,  speaks  likewise 
of  DnMPin  bw  nyi»B>,  apparently  referring  to  post-Talmudic 
traditions. 

An  extensive  collection  of  Geonic  Responsa  and  extracts 
from  the  codifications  of  the  Geonim  was  called  1DD 
niyivpcn,  which  was  compiled  at  Kairwan,  perhaps  during 
the  lifetime  of  Rabbi  Hai,  certainly  not  long  after  the 
extinction  of  the  Gaonate.  This  book  was  one  of  the 
chief  sources  from  which  the  German  authors  of  the  twelfth 
and  the  thirteenth  century  drew  their  knowledge  of  Geonic 
literature.  The  opinion  of  some  scholars,  that  Rabbi 
Hananel  was  the  author  of  this  work,  cannot  be  defended. 
Indeed,  if  anything  can  be  asserted  positively,  it  is  that 
Rabbi  Hananel  was  not  the  author2. 

The  pan  IBD  was  a  collection  similar  to  the  one  just 
mentioned,  and  it  probably  belongs  to  approximately  the 
same  time  and  place.  Whether  Rabbi  Hefez  ben  Yazliah, 
the  correspondent  of  Rabbi  Hai,  actually  was  the  author, 
seems  to  me  not  quite  certain  3.  An  argument  against  his 

1  "The  books  of  the  Academy,"  of  which,  according  to  the  statement 
of  his  pupils  in  their  commentary  (p.  36)  on  Chronicles,  Rabbi  Saadia 
made  use,  do  not  mean  Geonic  writings,  as  Harkavy  holds,  in  Samuel 
ben  Hofni,  28 ;  they  were  books  in  the  library  of  the  Academy,  and 
have  nothing  to  do  with  either  rwioizj  or  niyno . 

8  Rapoport  in  his  Biography  of  Eabbenu  Hananel,  note  36,  called  attention 
to  many  differences  between  the  mrispan  'c  and  Rabbenu  Hananel. 
His  conjecture  that  the  'pon  'D  was  begun  by  Rabbenu  Hananel  and  then 
elaborated  and  worked  over  by  another  hand  is  a  theory  faute  de  mieux. 
The  passage  in  fw,  1, 167 a,  to  which  Berliner  in  bMin  'nsD,  20,  refers, 
is  to  be  emended  to  read  ':n  »m  instead  of  ':n  'm,  for,  as  appears  plainly 
from  the  quotations  taken  by  Berliner  from  the  "w,  the  author  did  not 
ascribe  the  'port  'D  to  n""i.  This  also  disposes  of  Berliner's  statement  that 
the  mjrapDrt  'D  was  in  part  arranged  according  to  the  treatises  of  the 
Talmud  ;  moan  J"D  in  this  passage  of  the  i"i«  refers  not  to  the  'port  'D 
but  to  bN^n  <aii.  Though  the  'port  'D  was  not  written  by  Rabbenu  Hananel, 
the  author  must  have  been  a  North  African,  the  only  explanation  that 
could  be  offered  for  the  frequent  references  to  African  scholars  to  whom 
Geonic  Responsa  were  addressed. 

3  Rapoport's  view,  that  this  book,  too,  owned  R.  Hananel  as  its  author, 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  179 

authorship  is  the  circumstance  that  he  wrote  his  Book  of 
Commands  in  Arabic.  Accordingly,  it  would  be  fair  to 
assume  that  he  would  follow  the  example  of  Rabbi  Saadia, 
Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni,  and  Rabbi  Hai,  in  writing  his 
code  in  Arabic,  as  they  wrote  theirs  in  Arabic,  in  which 
case  it  would  be  strange  that  pen  'D  is  known  to  the 
Franco-German  authors  only,  since1  an  Arabic  work  would 
naturally  have  had  vogue  among  the  Jews  of  Arabic- 
speaking  countries. 

Among  the  works  of  this  class  we  should  put  the  IBQ 
D^m  "aa  by,  whose  author  was  called  Gaon  by  so  early 
an  authority  as  Rabbi  Isaac  of  Vienna,  in  his  ynt  "ttN, 
II,  52  a.  Of  course,  Gaon  need  not  be  here  taken  in  its 
original  sense.  It  probably  means  nothing  more  than 
a  great  authority  of  the  eleventh  century1.  The  oldest 

«annot  be  justified.  As  we  can  see  from  TT"C,  I,  63,  and  rn:o,  61  a,  yrn  is 
not  the  name  of  a  book,  but  of  a  person,  and  the  expression  yen  IED  is 
elliptical  for  yen  '~\  IEC.  For  references  on  Rabbi  Hefez  see  the  article 
in  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  s.  v.,  by  the  present  writer,  to  which  should 
be  added  Steinschneider,  Arabische  Literatur,  107,  and  Bacher,  Leben  und 
Werke  Abulwalid's  (1885),  89-90.  Dr.  Marx  calls  my  attention  to  the 
passage  Saadyana,  53,  proving  that  not  Rabbi  Hefez,  but  Ibn  Hofni,  must 
be  the  author  of  the  fragment  published  in  J.  Q.  R.,  VI,  705.  A  mson  'D 
is  cited  in  Vow,  III,  61  ;  however,  it  is  very  questionable  whether  the 
author  did  not  have  Rabbi  Samuel  ben  Hofni's  code  in  mind.  This  code 
seems  to  be  the  source  for  the  passage  in  VOCN,  I.e.,  127-9.  Furthermore, 
that  the  Halakic  decisions  of  Rabbi  Hefez  come  from  his  mson  'D  is 
highly  improbable.  The  assumption  can  hardly  be  based  upon  the 
words  of  the  I'IN,  Baba  Batra,  77  ;  78  :  yon  *np:n  D':iN3  'cai.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  I"IN,  Baba  Mezia',  275,  the  reading  should  be  (mioi  =)  'ison  'c3, 
instead  of  'i:on  'ca.  To  the  quotations  from  the  yen  'D,  collected  by 
Rapoport  and  others,  should  be  added  that  in  Cod.  Oxford,  692,  extracted 
by  Professor  Schechter,  in  J.  Q.  R.,  Ill,  343.  Comp.  also  Gross,  in  Z.H.B., 
XI,  178  ;  the  MS.  described  by  Gross  is  now  in  the  library  of  the  Jewish 
Theol.  Sem. 

1  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  North  Africans,  Rabbi  Hananel  and 
Rabbenu  Nissim,  the  Spaniards,  Rabbi  Moses  ben  Enoch  and  his  son 
Enoch,  as  well  as  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Abitur,  and  the  Italians,  Rabbi 
Kalonymos  and  his  son  Rabbi  Meshullam,  were  called  Geonim  by  their 
successors.  Likewise,  Miiller's  emendation  in  his  Mafteah,  178,  19, 
changing  pw  bxiw  'i  into  Nine  '-i,  cannot  be  endorsed.  He  is  identical 
with  pun  "jNisr  '-\  quoted  in  c'c,  I,  30,  83,  probably  one  of  the  older 

N  2 


l8o  THE    GEONIM 

author  who  refers  to  the  book  is  Rashi l,  and  we  are  thus 
justified  in  attributing  a  rather  high  age  to  the  book. 
To  judge  by  the  quotations  from  the  book,  it  contained 
important  JTO^n  '•pDB,  which  now  and  again  are  justified 
by  means  of  Geonic  Responsa2.  The  reference  to  the 
Responsa  of  the  heads  of  the  Academies  in  Jerusalem 
and  Babylonia  shows  plainly  that  the  work  is  not  by  a 
Gaon.  It  was  very  probably  written  by  an  author  from 
Frankish  lands,  in  the  eleventh  century,  a  time  in  which 
the  Jews  in  Europe  carried  on  learned  correspondences 
with  the  Palestinian  scholars  3. 

A  work  more  widely  known  than  either  of  these  three 
was  entitled  rrQTDD,  or  NraTUD,  a  collection  of  Geonic 
Responsa  frequently  quoted  by  German,  Proven9al,  and 
Spanish  authors4.  The  title  was  probably  derived  from 
the  fact  that  the  Geonic  views  given  in  the  book  were 
introduced  with  the  words  xraTiED  me?,  and  as  the  author 
was  not  known  otherwise,  he  was  called  the  NrOTio  ^jn, 
"  author  of  the  [decisions  of  the]  Academy."  The  wide- 
spread use  of  the  book  testifies  to  its  antiquity  and  to 
the  respect  in  which  it  was  held.  Yet  Rapoport's  opinion, 
that  the  author  was  Rabbi  Hai,  must  be  rejected  absolutely, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  ni:pn»  ^JD  is  quoted  in  opposition 

North  African  scholars,  like  Eabbi  Meborak,  who  also  is  called  Gaon. 
The  JINJ  torn  '-\  mentioned  by  Miiller,  I.e.,  whom  we  meet  again  in 
Wan:,  14,  in  all  probability  is  the  brother  of  Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Jehiel, 
one  of  the  oldest  authorities  in  Italy.  Comp.  Zunz,  Ritus,  192-3. 

1  "n  x"n  w*p,  82. 

2  On  this  Halakic  collection,  comp.  Freimann  in  Z.  H.  B.,  X,  178-82, 
and  Sulzbach,  in  Jahrbuchjud.  liter.  Gesellschaft,  V. 

3  Comp.  above,  pp.  88-9 ;   Epstein,  Monatsschrift,  XLVII,  340,  and  an 
article  by  the  same  author  in  fun,  VI,  69  et  seq. 

4  Quotations  therefrom  have  been  collected  by  Rapoport  in  his  Additions 
to  the  Biography  of  Eabbi  Hai,  end,  and  Harkavy,  Samuel  ben  Hofni,  note  73, 
to  which  should  be  added  DYIE,  21  c,  21  d  ;  'Ittur,  i  b,  n  a,  24  a,  14  b,  52  b. 
Auerbach,  in  the  introduction  to  the  Vow,  enumerates  nirr.D  among  the 
sources  cited  by  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  Isaac,  but  I  did  not   find  it  in 
the  three  printed  parts.   Dr.  Marx  calls  my  attention  to  Nahmanides,  on 
Kiddushin,  59,  and  nmnnn  'D,  40  d,  and  226  b,  where  niTrra  is  quoted. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  l8l 

to  Rabbi  Hai1.  Though  on  the  whole  presenting  the  views 
of  the  Babylonian  Geonim,  the  work  nevertheless  pays 
regard  to  the  Terushalmi.  This  would  suggest  that  it 
was  a  product  of  the  scholars  of  Kairwan,  who,  in  spite  of 
their  respect  and  veneration  for  the  Babylonian  Academies, 
did  not  neglect  the  study  of  the  Yerushalmi. 

The  N3i  NEncc? 2  is  a  Halakic  treatise  of  the  Geonic  time 
giving  a  short  description  of  how  phylacteries  are  to  be 
made,  together  with  some  few  of  the  injunctions  bearing 
upon  them.  A  most  interesting  point  is  that  the  little 
tractate  contains  a  number  of  Halakic  and  Haggadic  dicta 
not  known  from  any  other  sources,  which  are  set  down 
in  the  name  of  Babylonian  Amoraim.  The  alternative 
offered  is  to  consider  these  dicta  as  fabricated  for  the 
occasion,  or  as  oral  or  written  traditions  of  the  Talmudic 
time  still  at  the  disposal  of  the  author.  If  the  last  is 
the  correct  assumption,  then  they  must  have  originated 
in  the  early  Geonic  time,  when  the  Talmudic  tradition  had 
not  yet  been  broken  off  entirely.  The  proof  for  the  high 
age  of  the  book  is  not  only  the  idiomatic  Aramaic  in 
which  it  is  written,  but  also  the  emphatically  expressed 
view  that  only  scholars,  or  at  least  only  men  of  some 
learning,  should  put  on  phylacteries.  In  the  controversy 
between  the  Rabbanites  and  Karaites,  the  former,  at  so 
early  a  time  as  Rabbi  Jehudai  Gaon's,  the  very  beginning 
of  the  Karaite  schism,  insisted  upon  the  scrupulous  obser- 
vance of  the  law  of  phylacteries  on  the  part  of  every  single 
individual 3. 

We  are  no  longer  in  a  position  to  form  any  sort  of 


1  Comp.  'Ittur,  I4b-i5a,  where  Rabbi  Hai's  view  is  opposed  to  that 
of  the  «raviQ  tea.     In  'Ittur,  45  d,  Nna'na  m  101  should  probably  be  read 
rrnno  n  101. 

2  In  the  editions  of  the  c'«i  at  the  end  of  pVcn  rvobn.     Comp.  also 
no'i  'no,  639,  641,  644-5 »  Watt,  193 ;    and  Voictf,  II,  91.     Rabbi  Judah 
Albargeloni  was  the  probable  source  for  all  these  authorities. 

3  Comp.  the  Geonic  Responsa  in  biairw,  II,  90 ;  'Ittur,  II,  26  c-d ;  and 
n"ir,  155,  where  it  is  wrongly  ascribed  to  Rabbenu  Hai. 


I  82  THE    GEONIM 

idea  what  the  D^ltW  ppn  l  was,  mentioned  by  Rabbi  Jacob 
ben  Asher  in  Tur,  QraTi  Hayyim,  51.  Remembering  the 
freedom  with  which  later  authors  applied  the  title  Gaon, 
we  must  even  begin  to  doubt  whether  Rabbi  Jacob  meant 
the  Babylonian  Geonim  or  the  old  French  scholars. 

OEIGIN  OF  THE  RESPONSA  COLLECTIONS. 

The  first  attempt  at  gathering  the  Responsa  that  had 
been  in  free  circulation  for  centuries,  on  which  our  twelve2 
printed  Responsa  Collections  of  the  Geonim  are  based,  must 
have  been  coincident  with  the  time  when  scholars  began  to 
make  use  of  the  decisions  of  the  Geonim  as  foundations  for 
independent  works  of  Halakah.  This  does  not  take  account 
of  the  collections  kept  by  descendants  of  Geonim,  who 
treasured  them  as  heirlooms  3.  When  and  where  the  first 
Responsa  collection  was  made  cannot  be  determined  now. 
But  one  will  not  go  far  wrong  in  fixing  upon  the  time  of 
Rabbi  Hai  as  that  in  which  the  attention  of  scholars  was 
first  turned  to  such  work.  Only  in  the  questions  addressed 
to  the  last  Gaon4  does  one  meet  with  frequent  references 


1  Probably  identical  with  D'ywn  «:n  NdQC  in  nm  'no,  234,  NCIQC  is 
a  synonym  of  ppn. 

2  Muller  has  described  eleven  of  these  collections  in  his  Mafteah,  the 
twelfth,  rroVo  nbnp,  by  Solomon  Wertheimer,  Jerusalem,   1899,  did  not 
appear  until  after  his  death,  and  it  contains  Geonic  Responsa  from  the 
Genizah.   Wertheimer  also  printed  some  Geonic  Eesponsa  in  his  Collection 
D'btnv  »K3|  I.     Prof.  Schechter's  Saadyana  contains  but  few  Halakic  Re- 
sponsa.   The  one  published  there  on  p.  127,  lines  77-94,  is  to  be  found 
also  in  the  Geonic  Collection,  ed.  Mantua,  109.   Dr.  Harkavy  has  published 
some  Geonic  Responsa  in  the  Hebrew  periodicals  Jxn,  c^En,  and  n;D2n. 

3  Comp.  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  412. 

4  Muller,  in  his  Mafteah,  203,  is  not  altogether  accurate  when  he  asserts 
that  Rabbi  Hai  was  the  first  to  give  careful  study  to  the  Geonic  Responsa. 
It  would  have  been  more  correct  to  say  that  this  department  of  study 
developed  at  the  time  of  Rabbi  Hai,  and  thence  it  came  that  many 
inquirers  addressed  themselves  to  him  and  asked  for  explanations  of 
obscure  points  in  the  rnjiirn,  which  were  cited  in  the  questions  directed 
to  him  much  more  frequently  than  in  his  replies.     The  definition  of 
a  scholar  in  yV,  91  a,  is  interesting  in  connexion  with  this  point.    It 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  183 

to  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim,  which  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  Responsa  were  then  considered  a  department 
of  Rabbinical  study.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  Rabbi 
Hai  is  the  first  of  the  Geonim  to  refer  to  anonymous 
Responsa1.  When  his  predecessors  adduced  the  views 
of  earlier  Geonim,  they  almost  always  set  down  their 
names  explicitly.  While  in  the  earlier  time  the  name 
of  the  Gaon  was  needed  to  give  sanction  to  his  decision, 
later  on  it  sufficed  to  confer  authority  upon  a  Responsum 
if  it  was  known  as  Geonic.  Hence  the  indescribable 
arbitrariness  with  which  the  names  of  the  Geonim  were 
juggled  about  in  the  Responsa  Collections  preserved. 
Muller  made  the  attempt  in  his  Mafteah  to  arrange  the 
Responsa  according  to  the  Geonim,  an  arrangement  that 
falls  short  of  giving  satisfaction  in  a  reference-book  2. 

occurs  in  a  question  submitted  to  Rabbi  Sherira,  and  specifies  the 
requirements  to  be  knowledge  of  the  third  and  the  fourth  Order  of 
the  Talmud,  and  of  the  j"n.  The  n'ltt?  thus  formed  no  essential  part 
of  scholarly  equipment. 

1  Comp.  Muller,  Mafteah,  203,  note  13. 

2  If  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  there  were  six  Josephs  and  six  Haninas, 
four  Zemahs,   two   Kohen-Zedeks  and   two   Hilas,    three     Hais,   three 
Natronais,  and  three  Jacobs,  among  the  Geonim,  it  will  be  seen  readily 
that  it  is  impossible  in  a  large  number  of  cases  to  determine  the  author- 
ship  of  a  Responsum  even  when  a  name  handed  down   by  tradition 
accompanies  it.     It  is  Muller's  opinion  that  Kohen-Zedek  II  wrote  no 
Responsa,  but  we  now  know  otherwise  ;  see  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402.     Nearly 
all  the  Responsa  containing  Rabbi  Zemah's  name  in  the  superscription  he 
attributes  to  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Paltoi,  and  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
many  of  them  belong  to  Rabbi  Zemah  ben  Hayyim ;  comp.,  for  instance, 
nos.  a  and  50  (see  above,  p.  43,  note,  second  line),  and  no.  122,  where 
reference  is  made  to  a  case  decided  by  Rabbi  Zadok,  the  Gaon  of  Sura. 
Add  to  this  the  confusion  that  results  from  the  frequently  abbreviated 
names  ;  HJ'T  may  stand  for  Rabbi  Sherira,  but  with  equal  propriety  for  Sar 
Shalom ;  :*S  may  be  read  Rabbi  Natronai  or  Rabbi  Nahshon.     It  is  not  an 
undue  exaggeration  that  barely  a  third  of  all  Responsa  known  can  be 
assigned  to  authors  with  any  degree  of  certainty.     Muller,  desirous  of 
paying  due  respect  to  all  the  Geonim  alike,  frequently  classified  the 
same  Responsum  under  several  Geonim  in  his  Mafteah,  as,  for  instance, 
104  ('n)  is  assigned  to  Rabbi  Natronai,  also  67  ('i)  to  Rabbi  Jehudai.     Of 
the  decisions  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Natronai  in  c"n,  141,  some  appear  in 
Muller,  108  (i*r-n*r),  among  those  ascribed  to  this  Gaon,  the   rest  are 


184  THE    GEONIM 

As  the  scholars  of  Kairwan  make  most  frequent  refer- 
ence to  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim  in  their  questions 
addressed  to  Rabbi  Hai,  the  hypothesis  suggests  itself 
that  North  Africa  was  the  country  that  saw  the  earliest 
attempts  to  bring  order  into  what  was  coming  to  be  an 
amorphous  mass  of  Responsa.  It  has  been  established 
that  close  relations  subsisted  between  the  Babylonian 
Academies  and  the  North  African  congregations  since 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century1.  This  would  add 
to  the  plausibility  of  the  hypothesis.  However  this  may 
be,  what  can  be  asserted  without  fear  of  contradiction  is, 
that  it  was  not  Babylonia  in  which  Responsa  Collections 
were  made  up.  Although  the  supposition  expressed  in 
G.  S.,  p.  310,  that  the  Geonim  kept  copies  of  the  Responsa 
sent  to  congregations  in  the  country  and  outside,  has  been 
corroborated  by  a  recently  published  Responsum  2,  it  may 
nevertheless  not  be  assumed  that  these  copies  served  as 
nuclei  for  all  or  any  of  our  Responsa  Collections.  The 
reason  is  this :  Among  the  published  Responsa  Collections 
there  is  not  one  that  contains  the  decisions  exclusively 
of  the  Babylonian  Geonim.  They  always  include  Responsa 
by  authors  living  elsewhere,  either  in  North  Africa,  Spain, 
or  France,  at  about  the  time  of  the  extinction  of  the 
Gaonate.  It  would  be  too  hazardous  to  dispose  of  all 
Responsa  of  this  class  by  declaring  them  to  be  later 
additions  to  the  Babylonian  Collections.  If  we  were 
disposed  to  resort  to  so  easy  a  subterfuge,  the  following 
data  would  prevent  it  effectually. 

The  first  Responsa  Collection  to  appear  in  print,  a"n, 
contains,   besides  the   extracts    of   the    decisions    of   the 

missing.  On  p.  218  (n"vp)  a  Responsum  is  listed  among  Rabbi  Hai's, 
but  on  p.  272  it  is  put  among  the  anonymous  Responsa.  The  only  satis- 
factory classification  of  these  Responsa  would  have  to  be  based  on  their 
contents ;  headings  formulating  the  subjects  dealt  with  would  at  the 
same  time  provide  for  various  versions  of  the  same  Responsum. 

1  Comp.  above,  p.  32.  The  Geonic  Responsa  made  use  of  by  the  collector 
of  the  Parties  are  likewise  addressed  to  the  scholars  of  Kairwan. 

2  Comp.  J.  Q.  R.,  XVIII,  402. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  185 

Geonim,  only  those  of  Rabbi  Enoch  of  Cordova,  a  con- 
temporary of  Rabbi  Hai.  The  important  collection,  p"B>, 
contains,  in  addition  to  the  Geonic  Responsa,  decisions 
by  Rabbi  Moses  of  Cordova,  a  contemporary  of  Rabbi 
Sherira,  by  his  son  Rabbi  Enoch,  and  his  disciple,  Rabbi 
Joseph  ben  Abitur,  and  by  Rabbi  Meshullam,  the  last 
three  contemporaries  of  Rabbi  ,Hai ;  and  also  decisions 
by  Alfasi,  who  was  twenty-five  years  old  at  the  death 
of  Rabbi  Hai.  Likewise  in  the  Collection  p"3  no  authors 
younger  than  Rabbi  Hai  are  named.  We  now  have  two 
sets  of  facts  before  us.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  seen 
that  the  impulse  to  make  Responsa  Collections  cannot  be 
proved  to  have  manifested  itself  earlier  than  the  time  of 
Rabbi  Hai.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  seen  that  in 
the  three  Responsa  Collections  instanced,  certainly  among 
the  oldest  of  their  kind,  no  younger  authority  than  Hai 
is  mentioned,  if  we  except  Alfasi,  while  the  non-Geonic 
authorities  mentioned  are  contemporaries  of  Rabbi  Hai 
outside  of  Babylonia.  This  would  seem  to  make  it  im- 
possible to  declare  the  Responsa  by  non-Babylonian  authors 
in  the  Collections  as  later  additions.  Or,  we  should  owe 
ourselves  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  they  include  no 
Responsa  by  scholars  living  after  Rabbi  Hai. 

In  scrutinising  the  arrangement  of  the  Responsa,  two 
points  can  be  fixed  upon  which  seem  to  have  been  of 
significance  to  the  collectors.  As  these  two  points  are 
incongruous  in  character,  the  result  is  that  there  is  not 
one  of  the  Responsa  Collections  executed  according  to 
a  consistent  plan.  The  two  points  are  authorship  and 
related  subject-matter. 

The  questions  submitted  to  the  Geonim  were  either 
dubious  cases  of  practical  bearing,  hence  unconnected  one 
with  another,  or  dubious  cases  coming  up  in  theoretic 
study  which  were  more  likely  to  have  some  relation  to 
one  another,  especially  if  their  common  point  of  departure 
was  a  given  section  of  the  Talmud.  An  example  of  the 
latter  class  is  afforded  us  in  the  fragment  published  in 


1 86  THE    GEONIM 

G.  S.,  pp.  328-36,  containing  a  number  of  Responsa  by  Rab 
Amram  on  rwv  nia^n.  These  have  not  been  arranged 
in  the  order  given  by  a  later  hand.  The  order  is  original 
with  their  author,  who  obviously  was  requested  to  explain 
and  codify  the  laws  on  nTX  given  in  the  fourth  section 
of  the  Talmudic  treatise  Menahot.  This  example  shows 
that  it  is  not  always  safe  to  attribute  a  logical  arrangement 
of  Responsa  according  to  subject  to  the  collector.  It  may 
be  the  work  of  the  Gaon  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  is 
the  author  of  the  Responsa  themselves.  However,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  Collectors  were  particularly  concerned 
with  arranging  the  matter  at  their  disposal  in  the  most 
logical  manner  possible. 

Isolated  portions  of  the  printed  Responsa  Collections, 
and  some  of  the  fragments  published  in  "  Genizah  Studies," 
have  been  spared  the  systematising  hand  of  the  collector, 
but  no  complete  collection  known  has  been  similarly 
fortunate.  This  lends  peculiar  interest  to  the  Responsa 
lists  published  in  G.  S.,  pp.  56-71.  Their  authenticity  can 
hardly  be  doubted,  guaranteed  as  it  is  by  the  name  of 
the  Gaon,  the  name  of  the  addressee,  and  their  checkered 
contents.  A  comparison  of  one  of  these  lists  with  the 
printed  Responsa  Collections  reveals  how  imperfectly  even 
such  among  the  latter  as  are  supposed  to  have  reached 
us  in  their  original  form  have  preserved  the  initial  order 
in  which  they  were  arranged.  Of  the  thirty- two  questions 
on  pp.  67-8,  below,  addressed  by  Rabbi  Jacob  ben  Nissim 
to  Rabbi  Sherira  and  his  son  Rabbi  Hai,  there  are  but 
two — and  these  two  in  widely  separated  places — that  occur 
in  the  Collection  published  by  Dr.  Harkavy,  which  he 
describes  as  having  been  planned  on  the  basis  of  the 
duplicates  kept  by  the  Geonim  in  Babylonia. 

But  this  pitfall  of  not  being  able  to  re-establish  the 
original  order  of  the  Responsa  is  not  the  only  one.  Care 
must  be  exercised  not  to  mistake  decisions  by  European 
and  North  African  scholars  for  decisions  by  the  Geonim. 
This  applies  particularly  to  the  large  number  of  anonymous 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  187 

Responsa  in  the  Collections  of  Geonim,  not  by  the  Geonim. 
The  quotations  from  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim  in  the 
older  Halakic  literature  are  an  excellent  guide.  To  the 
authors  of  this  literature  Geonic  Collections  were  accessible, 
more  accurate  and  reliable  than  ours.  But  these  same 
authors  have  a  far  higher  function  to  perform  in  the  study 
of  Geonic  literature.  Their  main  value  is  that  they  knew 
a  multitude  of  Geonic  Responsa  that  have  come  down  to 
us  through  no  other  channel  besides.  In  his  Mafteak 
Miiller  has  made  the  first  attempt  to  bring  them  together, 
and  as  a  first  attempt  it  is  most  satisfactory.  But  he  has 
not  dug  out  even  the  half  of  the  hidden  treasure  to  be 
found  in  numerous  works,  beginning  with  Rabbi  Hananel 
and  extending  down  to  Caro  500  years  later l. 

As  an  exemplification  of  the  importance  of  Halakic 
literature  for  the  study  of  the  Geonim,  there  follow  three 
lists  of  Geonic  quotations  in  the  works  respectively  of  a 
Spanish,  an  Italian,  and  a  French  scholar,  parallels  in  our 
printed  Responsa  Collections  and  in  other  sources  being 
marked. 

The  first  list  contains  quotations  from  three  works  by 
Albargeloni  as  the  representative  of  the  Spanish  school : 

SPANISH  SCHOOL. 
ALBARGELONI. 

own 

n*o  rn'oa  NTT  im  17 

a"n  n*«?  im  17 

''jp  E*n  ;n"nn*ir  naitcnai  17 

n*:  ,'a  Vwn 

"jpcrtjQTnw  im  1 7 
1*3  ,'a  Vcn 

i  P  D  n  ornNcc  18 


«*D  *)"}  jwa  3 

WVTC  10 
2'nn  13 
nvw:  15 
•I'D  01*03  niwrai  17 

1  David  Kaufmann,  in  the  Bet  Talmud,  III,  64,  published  two  Responsa 
by  Rabbi  Sherira  and  Rabbi  Hai  from  a  MS.,  not  noticing  that  the  same 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Responsa  of  Rabbi  Solomon  ben  Adret,  V,  25  a-b, 
no.  121. 

a  In  his  commentary  ? 


i88 


THE    GEONIM 


b'p  'n  a'n 


n  op 

•1*3   O 
1*3   O 


25  a  3/So 
25  a  y-iD 

25  b  S»"-ID 


i": 


I,  7  t3"ttJ 

I,  9  c"o 

I,  10  \e"izj 

12  d  a"n 
n":  b"a 

n"o  'n   ;  12  b  a"n 

13  a  a"n 


'n  ;  12  • 


125 

132 

i35 

mpiDDai  135 
Drni^Dd  135 
p«a  136 
Npccai  136 
jwa  139 
i43 
H3 
i43 
i43 

ma  bn  143 
ana  b»i  144 
NpDsai  144 
nbstrai  148 
nai^nai  149 

Cnbi^^rTiDT    149 

maittnai  150 
i53 
i54 

arm  157 
1 60 
160 
172 
173 
!74 

VL: — myo  176 
178 
D:  178 
182 

'sn  182 
rrnno  183 
««n  183 
'«:niD3  183 
nos  185 

DTOO  189 
190 
190 
I9I 

mbnaai  mpicDai  193 
J93 
195 
J95 
196 
199 


a"o  o  ioa 
'n  ,-p-W 
a"p  ,a*n 


13  a  a"n 
13  a  a"n 

;n*y  b'a 

*'P  nnso 


"op 


n"np 


18 

snnan  19 

jwab  26 
anbwoc  26 
26 
26 
27 
27 
34 

37 
38 
39 
39 

mbnaai  39 
««rr  43 
jiwb  46 
"«n  48 
49 
49 
52 
53 
56 
57 
64 

ji«a  64 
nawiai  65 
Npcoai  66 
naiirna  74 
74 
76 

naiirrai  91 
jwan  94 
nipiDEai  104 
«pDDai  109 
j:no«  109 
p«ab  no 

im— DribNuwi  114 
im  114 
*^wn  ii^ 
"Nn  116 
124 

mi— 'aiTyi  124 
nbNTCH?  124 
«Tmr  124 


In  his  commentary. 


2  Comp.  ffi'o,  I,  18-19. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


««n  260 

niwnai  199 

I,  69  Vow                  rrnrra  264 

I,  IO   c"lZ7 

cite  n  199 

29  a  y*~\r>                 '10102  266 

3*0   b*3 

NpD'Bl!   2OO 

>'Nn  267 

nrrajnai  200 

rrnno  267 

3"3   V3 

"xn  200 

'nn  268 

rnyo  20  1 

rvnyo  208 

l"3   b's 

C1O3?    2O2 

NY-It?  268 

i*icp  n'c 

"nrr  203 

'nn  268 

1*7  n't? 

D1O3?  203 

rrnno  269 

'3  'n  ;  13  d  3*n 

mpicci  204 

mpicD2i  nm  270 

nos  204 

nipiDEai  270 

0*7  n*o 

"«n  204 

28  b  y"^c                '*»3T«D:  270 

I,  5  ®"c 

'«3T1B3   204 

28  a  3TI3O                    'ncbo  270 

'a  'n  ;  13  d  3*n   nib 

11321  mpicsai  206 

"Nn  271 

— 

D^Qyc  'n\D  — 

29  a  y*iD                 'N21Y23  272 

I,  3  ffi»c 

Mnnn  207 

««n  275 

3*3  'n  ;  12  c  3*n  mb 

nsai  mpiCDai  211 

?lYnDl                         mj?D  275 

no^  211 

'«n  275 

rpnrra  211 

?vvnD3.                 mro  276 

1*0  ,'n  ,iac  3*n 

niVnan  211 

"Nn  276 

n":  V"3 

w«n  212 

^l^Q/D  270 

'HH  215 

OYoy  277 

26  b  r*-o 

'N311E3   2l8 

»NH  277 

B":  b*3 

^Mn  222 

3*2  b*3                       "«n  278 

"j"p  D*n 

nnbxnjd  235 

ii  a  J?*TD                    aiVo  281 

B*3T  n*CJ 

Drt^cci  235 

3*3p  0*103                 >*prDa  281 

23  a  ;  i  y*tt? 

on'rNii^m  235 

i"?p  D*n                     pN3  287 

23  a  ;  2  y*c 

cnbucci  235 

««n  288 

23  b  53  y'tu 

nari  236 

"xr?  288 

23  b  ;  6  y*c 

orfowDi  236 

'l  '*3   ,'l  y"lD                      n*3YTC3  289 

25  b  ;  18  y*ic 

DnbxiCd  236 

J1N31)  289 

26  a  ;  20  y*c 

in  337 

n^'w  3*3                    ITDD  301 

26  a  ;  21  y*o 

cn^Ncti?  237 

"NH  304 

26  b  ;  27  y*\D 

mi  238 

|1N37  306 

27  a  ;  35  y*c 

rtncfi  238 

JW3  310 

27  b  ;37  ?*» 

Drr?^TC^T     —  -|(  ' 

3*n                  rvofci  310 

J1N3  240 

n*sp  3*3             Drtwunoi  316 

'«n  248 

n*sp  3*3                 Vicii  316 

MT1C  248 

NpDDTI  317 

"NTT  2T  249 

'vn  337 

vanes:  249 

'«n  339 

?  TO1TS2 

"Nn  252 

p»3  341 

rrnno  253 

pH3  343 

"xn  253 

p«  ,-piy                      "Nn  347 

156  n"3 

«nn  253 

103  n*3 

"xn  257 

1  Are  the  following  five  quotations  taken  from  R.  Hai's  commentary  on  Shabbatf 


190 


THE    GEONIM 


I'D  ,n*3 

ir'p  nnro 


,n*p  3*n 


82 

84 
86 
86 
?2r\vh  87 
sn  p  105 
124 
125 
126 
126 


n  psmp 
|8< 


24 


17 
18 

24 

53 
71 

76 

78 


"«n  114,  128 

"«"  ^T,  138 
6»Nn  149 
8«nn  154 
1 66 
1 66 
262 


II,  44  Vim 

II,  46  ->"trn 

'3  ,'n  ,3*n 

n"3   D^PI  DTO 


25 
26 

28 

74 
85,86 
•HTT  103 


The  second  list  illustrates  the  Italian  school  by  references  to 
the  Cp^n  'fyytf  by  Zedekiah  dei  Mansi.  In  this  list  and  the 
third,  special  devices  have  been  adopted  for  two  purposes. 
A  cross  (  +  )  indicates  that  the  Responsa  cited  are  not  by  Geonim, 
but  by  old  French  and  Italian  authorities,  called  Geonim  by 
courtesy.  Again,  when  there  are  doubts  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Responsa  with  actual  Geonim  or  Geonim  by  courtesy,  a  query  is 
put  against  the  citation. 


1  In  his  commentary  on  Baba  Batra. 
8  In  his  treatise  on  Witnesses  ? 
3  Compare  Halberstam's  remarks. 

*  Comp.  Tosafot  on  Baba  Batra,  10  b,  catchword  D 
R.  Hananel's  commentary. 

5  Comp.  above,  pp.  171-2. 

*  In  this  collection,  as  in  Harkavy  199,  the  responsum  is  ascribed  to  K.  Hai. 


\vho  quoted  it  from 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


ITALIAN  SCHOOL. 
ZEDEKIAH  DEI  MANSI. 


NT1TD    13 

i  np  a  a                'Mano:  i 

n*ap  :*n                    TOS  13 

?                        pNabi  i 

+                  «c<:iNan  14 

D':wan  3 

7  c'awab  14 
22  b  DTID                     'Kn  14 
+                     c'awab  15 
?                    8D'3wab  16 
mro  16 

Vrp  a*a                'WIITD:  3 
+                     ap»ai  6 
.en  ,TTI?                    rtxco  7 

1,31  ;59  XD'C                 D'siNab  17 
1*0  a*n                 D':wa^  18 
p*oi  19 
II,  n,  12  Vim                     '«n  19 

»'MrT  8 
9wirr  8 

58  a  CTID                    "MH  20 
'D  rt*a                c':iwan  21 
'  T  nnco                    "Mn  22 

+                  *  D':i«an  9 
47  b  maia  ,C"NT                      '«n  9 

9mj?c  —  nat  22 
58  a  DTID                     »«n  22 

I'D  Va                a^awan  n 

?                        p«a^  22 

2*S  D*n                          1>NC3   II 

pwaVi  22 

+                    n^isa?  12 

+                        pwab  23 
pnab  23 

4  b-s  a  y'nc                   Dioy  13 
H"DT  'n  ,a"n                  ptcna  13 
58  a  CTID              B  '«:no:  13 

44  a  cmo               pis  ;HD  25 

4by*x5                   rnro  13 

1  Not  a  Babylonian  authority,  the  prayer  Dtob  is  of  Palestinian  origin,  comp. 
Ratner,  T*in«,  Berakot,  199-200,  and  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  46. 

2  Comp.  G.  £,   p.  273,  n.,    where   cbprpi    is  used  by  R.  Hai,  and  R.  E.  J., 
LIV,  195. 

s  Is  hardly  a  Babylonian  Gaon,   the  explanation   shows  the   influence  of 
mysticism  ;  comp.  Parties,  57  d~s8  a. 

*  German  authorities,  as  indicated  by  the  name  rrnrr  -\"i  pns'  'i. 

5  The  text  of  bn'ac  is  to  be  amended  in  accordance  with  Parties  and  I'tn,  I,  52. 

*  Italian  authorities ;  R.  Daniel  is  the  brother  of  R.  Nathan  b.  Jehiel,  comp. 
above,  p.  179,  n.  i. 

7  Comp.  Ratner,  T'ITW,  Berakot,  51-2. 

'  Comp.  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  66,  and  the  authorities  given  in  Bet  Yosef,  ad  loc. 
9  This  passage  is  undoubtedly  of  Geonic  origin ;  perhaps  a  literal  quotation 
from  R.  Hai's  Seder. 
19  Comp.  Tur ;  Bet  Yosef;  Orah  Hayyim,  594,  and  c"c,  I,  30. 


192 


THE    GEONIM 


a*D  Q*1T33 

™^*^SJ^T     A  C 

i_  ratsi  45 

'a  a'n                wrrca  25 

c'^inan  46 

35  b  y'-c                     lpa  28 

I'D  'n  ,a'n 

nVma  46 

60  d  DTIS                     "»n  28 

s'p  n'c 

c'aisan  46 

II,  42  Vcn                     w«n  28 

II,  9  b  i*« 

D'aisan  46 

19  a  f"^3               cibtD  ~TT  28 

[pis]  pa  47 

jiwai  28 

i*op  Q'TOJ 

NTTC3   48 

37  b  y'-ic                   Din?  29 

s  TI  n  c 

D'ai«ani  49 

ai'in  D"n  mix  iv^                     pN3i  29 

Vp  E*n 

ixarvQa  49 

ap«a  30 

25  a  r'-c 

9  DlVffi  50 

n*:  ,a"n                 '»anca  31 

25  a  y'-c 

**»wr«fl  50 

3  Dior  32 

26  a  y"TC 

HDIOJ  51 

29  a  y"~c                  mo?  33 

25  b  y'lD       m 

mro     '-i  51 

+                        Jisabi  33 

<MITtD3 

+                         p«a'7  33 

26  b  y'-c 

D"1O?    S  2 

'Him*  33 

'n  a'n  ;  12  c  a'n 

rrtDbn^i  52 

n"s  b'a                 o*3i«an  34 

s'sp  ow 

D'awn  53 

29  a  y'nc                wnc:  35 

38  a  cms 

L_     .   !P<Jl            J^ 

2"p  ,a*a                 *«:nsa  35 

i'cp  n'c 

12»«nrp  53 

+                        *p»*a  37 

13  n'aixan  54 

8"Nn  37 

i':  '•)"} 

DT23?  5  4 

?                          p«a  37 

9  d  DTID  '•sip? 

D':i«an  56 

14  b  y"iD                 *  c-itar  38 

a*s  Va 

'^n  57 

3,'ap  E"H                D'aina?  38 

29  a  y'-c 

'sanoa  57 

'nwcna  38 

14'isbB  58 

X  /p  n  a                      ^Nn  39 

n?ao  ,-Ts  ff  n 

'tons:  59 

i  r  ?  a                    "sn  39 

? 

D'aiwb  59 

+                    D'aiwn  41 

'p  a'n 

Jixa  60 

n  'o    a'n               ^  ^x*i"^*^^  ^12 

Vnp  E*n 

nns  62 

M  n  n'c                'fconsa  44- 

+ 

D'ainan  63 

me  rrerto  p'm                  HTTO  45 

I  Comp.  above,  p.  150,  n.  i.  8  Comp.  D*n,  190. 

3  Not  in  the  Seder,  neither  in  24  a  nor  29  a. 

4  Later  than  R.  Hai  whose  opinion  is  quoted. 

5  In  his  commentary  on  Berakott 

6  Our  text  of  the  Seder  has  a  different  wording.     MSS.  S  and  0  agree  with  the 
printed  text. 

7  The  version  of  the  bn"yc  is  essentially  different  from  that  given  in  y"ic,  n  a, 
and  Parties,  56  b  ;  comp.  6.  S.,  p.  49,  and  Additions. 

8  This  responsum  is  ascribed  to  R.  Nahshon  in  a*n ;  comp.  also  above,  119,  n.  3. 
*  The  version  of  ?n"ac  agrees  with  that  in  CTIE,  55  d,  and  not  with  r'lT. 

10  Comp.  DTiD,  55  d,  and  Q"ID,  120. 

II  Nmenp  in  J»"TD  is  not  Kiddush  but  the  yatj  pro  ro-a. 

11  In  n"o  it  is  ascribed  to  R.  Hai. 
1S  Comp.  Tur,  Orali  Hayyim,  271. 

14  Comp.  Voirx,  II,  i  ;  Tur,  Orah  Hayyim,  283. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


193 


7  a  DTffl 

«nn  103 

1D»3i»an  66 

31  b  y*x> 

'K311B3    104 

TD'D  'n,  a'n                  nobn  67 

's  nrt«iD  'rnSna 

rnrforoa  106 

+                   *  D^IWI  70 

38  b  DT1D 

»nn  1  08 

?                     D'3inan  71 

win  1  08 

a*1)  o*ioa               craixan  72 

41  C  DT1D 

wi  109 

+                          pwi  77 

? 

D'3iNan  no 

+                        p«ai  77 

D'jwa'j  na 

n*D  nnco                  xmn1  78 

I,  3  w*c 

''ITD^D   114 

?                     D'aiMb  79 

I,  43  bocN 

"Mn  115 

4-                       8pwai  79 

D':iwan  115 

+                        pxai  80 

II,  99  C'UJ 

««n  115 

TL"?P  D*n                  'Miin4  83 

10  a  a'n 

mabnai  115 

p«ai  83 

1*3  Va 

o~my  116 

•c'Vp  D*n                   'hnin1  83 

9  a  a'n 

'«nin»  116 

?                    D':i»«n  83 

I'o  Va 

D':wab  116 

tD  /p  D  n                  vtiirp  84 

1*3  ninbHrc 

'KHN   Il6 

p»ai  84 

I'D  'n  59  d  a'n 

no'vn  117 

B'SW,  a'a                  '*nin'  86 

D':i«an  117 

I'D  Va                   *»«n  88 

n'sp  n'i»  TITO 

D'3i«ai  118 

T*n  n'c                    "«n  89 

8d  a'n 

'MTinr-  120 

pHJI  90 

rVo  Va 

10  'ITD'JD  120 

4-                     D'3iwn  ga 

i'a  Va 

n^iNan  123 

»*OT  n'w               D'3inan  94 

n'o  Va 

'*»TCT>    126 

pMabi  95 

n'yuj  "niman  nyra 

'3Dn  p   126 

B*p  1*0                       p»a  97 

II,  56  i*cn 

D'jiMan  126 

30  a  y*TD                    Dib«  98 

I 

snl»«DttJ<i  127 

V'p  1*0                 D':i«:n  99 

n'cw  rvoian  nyw 

<:cn  p  127 

30  a  y*TO                    cibc  99 

B  y\c  manan  *"V?TD 

':cn  p  127 

31  a  S'ID                 'Hinioj  101 

7  c  a'n 

msbm  127 

31  a  y'iD                   moy  101 

1*3  'n  7  a  a'n 

nisVm  128 

Rino  ioi 

"> 

<n  vaii  128 

8rpv  ioi 

D'3i«an  130 

32  d  y'no                 *  moy  102 

a'cc  rvoian  nyc 

'3cn  p  131 

42  b  y*iD                    pns  103 

II,  10  VQICN 

D'3i«ab  136 

U>  53  a  T1^^             *  '01  f]DV  103 

1  Comp.  Twr,  Graft  Hayyim,  291.  2  Comp.  ibid.,  382. 
*  Comp.  Bet  Yostf,  Graft  Hayyim,  301  end. 

4  The  view  ascribed  to  R.   Hai  in  Va  is  opposed  to  that  ascribed  to  him 

in  bn'atj.  6  Comp.  Miiller,  Mafteah,  80. 

'  Comp.  above,  p.  147.  7  Read  sax  10  na  psa  r\cv  '•». 

8  Read  mVna  mibnai  mnVwca  and  comp.  a'n,  9  b ;  ed.  Hildesheimer,  67. 

9  Ibn  Gajat  quotes  it  on  the  authority  of  R.  Hai,  but  R.  Hai  uses  the  words 


10  Comp.  also  Coronel,  57. 

11  Published  in  Bet  Talmud,  vol.  III. 
I 


194 


THE    GEONIM 


isn  ,-piy 

D1/Q7  ^^?    loo 

33  »  r'lD 

oioy  ^37 

»«n  166 

N'1??  ,a*n 

C'jiNan  140 

+ 

D»:wan  167 

II,  12  bl3TT» 

jwai  140 

*op  'n  ',a8  a'n 

rro'mi.  171 

33  b  y'lD 

moy  141 

o'n  n*i«  TIB 

[pis]  pns  jns  171 

1*3  a'n 

1  D^wan  142 

? 

7c'2wan  171 

ib*i  n'c 

NrQTTOO   ^44 

I3*vi  'n  ;  15  c  a'n 

'unn1  1  72 

ab'i  n'tD 

Mm^QD  1  44 

-,».-  ^'.». 

1     p    U    1UJ 

*c':iwn  172 

1*3  mnb«tj 

'Mn«  144 

+ 

D':wan  173 

D':wan  145 

i^p  'n  ,a*n 

'131  na'm  174 

+ 

D'awan  145 

a^wn  175 

36  a  3?*iD 

DTO3J   147 

rrnwn  175 

M'm  ,'n  ,a'n 

'«nn»  147 

4- 

o^ixan  176 

n'n  b'a 

'MTin»  147 

a*7  ,1D*TO3 

[pis]  pm  jns  176 

142  = 

'N21TO3    148 

I'DI  n*c 

pis  p3  178 

*3>'lD 

moy  1  50 

I'D?  c'n 

n 

Nni'D'Ju   170 

I'cp  D'n 

^n  152 

«»n  179 

p«ab  153 

+ 

o^isan  179 

CnbXTTd  153 

'D  mnV«tD 

»«n«  181 

*pw  155 

4- 

D'JINJ'J  182 

t*Ep  D*n 

4TWsn  156 

DT01S   184 

II,  109  Sj'tiJ 

5nos  156 

n*Dp  a'a 

D'^Nan  197 

II,   IO9    M'    C 

*vn  156 

o'p  'n  ,a'n 

n^iNan  201 

37  b  y'lo 

8  moy  157 

II,  53  c  Tray 

1*31plS  p3  201 

n'p  n'o 

D>:i«an  158 

40  b  JJ'TD 

DTiwan  202 

Soadyana,  59 

n'TTD   161 

i*op  'n  ;  30  a  a'n 

rnsbnn  202 

I'D  H'TD 

"Nn  161 

Denary  202 

+ 

m3i®n3  161 

II,  146  nn'n 

"Nn  203 

l*Vp  'n  ;  22  b  a'n 

noyrn  161 

+ 

D^iMan  203 

a's  n'rc 

M«n  162 

? 

D^iNab  209 

D'jiNa1)  162 

II,  26  c'o 

ni3itrn3  211 

E'I  n'c 

C'31NJ^   162 

t'n  n*c 

10'i3i  p®na  211 

onrc 

«Mn  162 

II,  24  «j*TB 

pwb  212 

n*:i  I'D 

'131  »«n  163 

pnai  212 

n'ci  n'« 

n'jwan  164 

+ 

maitDni  213 

a*Di  n's? 

D'3i»ab  165 

1  In  bn'axr,  148,  ascribed  to  R.  Natronai ;  comp.  also  Tur,  Yoreh  Leah,  401. 

*  Comp.  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  20. 

3  R.  Samuel  b.  Hofni?     Comp.  n*®  79  and  Mafteah,  171. 

*  Comp.  above,  p.  43,  note.  5  Comp.  above,  p.  43,  n. 
8  Comp.  above,  p.  147,  n.  2. 

7  I  doubt  whether  this  Responsum  is   Geonic  ;    notice  especially  the  use   of 
the  word  D»33i. 

8  Comp.  it'tt,  I,  6.  •  Comp.  above,  p.  153,  n.  i. 
10  Read  pm  instead  of  prtjr,  and  comp.  above,  p.  143,  n.  i. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


195 


II,  120  d  I'M 

8  %.*-.«_<    **£.* 
'Kll~    207 

•>*op  'n  J3°b  J*" 

mo/n  753  217 

N11J?  «jr,D 

rr-rrc  267 

y'-in  'n  ;  137  c  a'n 

'HTn^  217 

?YYnD 

««n  267 

1  0*3  wan  217 

i*c  n*S  ,v*tr\ 

«xn  267 

+ 

D'awan  220 

220  = 

D'J^Nan  267 

i*Dp  n't? 

D'jinan  220 

pxaS  268 

>»*Dp  'n   536  a  a'n 

niD^na  227 

6c  a'n 

nobn  268 

x'cp  'n  536  a  a'n 

NT'p  228 

44  a  DTID 

•«Hn  268 

pnai  229 

44  a  DTIC 

'131  DTay  268 

i*yp  'n   ;s6b  a'n 

nia^n  237 

267  = 

«nn  269 

n*3wan  242 

45  a  3?*iD 

D'31Na  269 

Dn^MurTDi  243 

maiTDna  270 

+ 

tyainan  246 

10  Dioy  270 

? 

pto^  247 

+ 

D':iwan  271 

*  MT'p  248 

'..    «»«» 
P  i  ^  ™ 

jwab  273 

i'o  D*n 

pis  jno  248 

n*o  ,^3 

voim  276 

+ 

D':wan  249 

I,  25  TT'TD 

vn  278 

N  ^D  npn 

*  rnyD  252 

InjRM 
4.2    u,    U? 

Q 

n1  iiu  20  1 

D'awab  254 

46  b  J?*TD 

moy  281 

II,  2  Vou?« 

*pnan  254 

I,  42  c'c 

««n  281 

+ 

D'3i«an  254 

i*op  rrvs'  'D  'jVya 

ma'w  282 

a'sp  o'n 

5  a':i»an  254 

n't  iyo  toin  'T 

MD'3iNan  283 

D':isa  257 

281  = 

mor  —  rnrD  284 

n*:p  O'TD 

A  ....             —  —  O 

H3TU?   250 

n't  I'D  ,fn 

ia»nrno  en  285 

III,  9  c  DTI  anan 

>*n  258 

I,  44  w*w 

19D>:wan  286 

+ 

craiMan  258 

I,  43  m'rc 

15  "Nn  287 

n'o»  a'a 

mwan  259 

o 

n^ijTD  207 

I,  22  C'TD 

pMab  259 

50  a  y'TD 

Mwan  288 

I,  21    tt?*1T 

pxan  259 

50  a  y'-o 

'tOltll  288 

i  D  mrv?No 

KTO  260 

Q    _*_       ^^'^w*. 

T  a  D  u  ioa 

pen:  288 

n'jyn  n  't 

pnab  261 

1'cp  mn'iwD 

'Hnx  ago 

o^awan  261 

+ 

D':i»an  295 

D'3iKab  263 

niTDi 

»»n  295 

i*»  n'c 

7p-n?  pa  263 

+ 

I4o':i«an  296 

I,  50  VOTI 

D'swan  266 

1  Comp.  «j*c,  II,  108-9,  and  0.  S.,  p.  185. 

2  Not  found  in  our  two  versions  of  a*n. 

8  Comp.  Parties,  48  a  mro  n  ^  ^D^»,  accordingly  not  the  Gaon  R.  Saadia. 

4  Comp.  also  Alfasi,  Ta'anit,  .  .  .  and  Vru'c,  261. 

s  Comp.  0.  S.,  p.  263.  •  Comp.  above,  p.  104,  n.  i. 

7  In  n'c  ascribed  to  R.  Hai. 

8  Comp.  Muller,  Handschriftliche  Jehudai,  &c.,  u,  and  ff.  S.,  p.  263. 
'  Comp.  D'ny,  252  and  288. 

11  Comp.  Jerusalem,  VII,  167. 
«  =  ««n  'i,  comp.  c*c,  I,  42. 
14  Comp.  Parties,  44  c. 

0  2 


19  Comp.  above,  p.  141. 
13  Comp.  (?.  S.,  a6i. 


196 


THE    GEONIM 


I,  42  TD'TO 
I'T  'n   ;42b  a'n 


22  C   DTID 

,f"-\  'n  541  d  j'n 
20  a  ;  3  X>*ID 


'n  ; 


n*T  'n   542  a  a'n 

22  b  DTID 

22  b  ; 13  y'c 

22  a  55  y'TD 

22  a  53  y'\u 

22  b  ; 12  y'o 

22  b  ;  ii  y'ttj 

I'p  'n  ,a*n 

i'p  'n  ,a'n 

i*p  'n  ;  24  a  a'n 

n*n  ">'a 

1  ,:'a  n*DT  ,n's  ,T>B 


344 
344 
345 
346 
346 
347 
347 
347 
348 
35° 
D'JiNan  350 

352 
353 
354 
355 
355 
357 
357 
360 
362 
362 
364 
365 
366 

12 'Nn  370 
p«a  370 
pwa  371 

wirr  373 

•W  (TO  373 

nos  374 

Dl^tD  374 

»»Tirr  374 

'XTirr  374 

pwab  374 

NYV  376 


48  b  y'no 

44  d  DT1B 

I'D  n'«? 

D*p  'n  ;32b  a'n 
c'p  'n  ;32b  a'n 


a'cp  'n   ;32d  a'n 
I,  89  ID'ID 

I,  100  TD'\O 
n'Dp  'n   ;ssd  a'n 


II,  107  TD'TD 

n*«  n'sj 
50  b  S'TD 

II,  42  d  T1EW 

QTJJ   ^1TQ3? 

50  b  y*~[D 
34  c  a'n 


I,  n6d  n'« 

II,  42  n'xcn 
n'jaa  FJID  f]'n 

a'c  mail  f]'n 
n"? 


296 
297 
299 
299 
303 
3<>7 
rrobn  308 
308 
309 
3" 
3M 
3H 
rabc  315 

3i5 
317 
322 

323 
325 
327 
328 
328 
rnyo  328 
>«n  328 

'TO^D  328 
328 
338 
330 
330 
33° 
331 
333 
333 

Bp«a  333 
"«n  340 

*wnt$  34^ 


1  Not  in  the  Halakot  Gedolot. 

2  C!omp.  Hildesheimer,  ad  loc. 

3  Our  versions  of  the  a'rr  read  differently. 

*  Comp.  G.  S.,  310,  and  n'«,  I.  113  e. 

s  The  Seder  is  also  the  source  for  'I/tur,  .  .  . 

I  n'c  has  only  an  extract  of  this  Eesponsum. 

8  R.  Amram  in  his  Seder,  51  a,  differs  from  this  view. 

•  Comp.  above,  p.  194,  n.  i.  "  The  author  is  E.  Hai. 

II  This  is  the  Eesponsum  to  which  reference  is  made  in  bn'ac,  257. 
u  Comp.  Vow,  II,  123.  "  Read  with  y'c : 


*  Comp.  "jrr'iur,  216,  270. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


197 


I,  114  b  i*w 

n3*pn  'n  ;  128  a  j'rt 

1'3  ,3*3 


TD'3 


.*._   .'_ 

3  3p  J  n 
n'?pn  'n  ;  130  a  a'n 


-En  p  393 

mwn  395 

m3"?n  395 

+ 

r;iNjn  398 

3'D  D'n 

fwa  398 

II,  26  d  ticy 

msbna  399 

II,  86  "JOCN 

nos  399 

3'D  C'n 

':wan  399 

3*D  C*H 

)'31M3H   399 

3'3   ,3'n 

'3iwn  399 

ni^Sn  400 

3':p  n'c 

'31H3P!  400 

I,  46  ^'«J.-l 

]1NJ  400 

I,  47  I'tcn 

6  "xn  408 

('Mb'rr)  383  = 

':i«3n  408 

258  = 

K-PP  376 
««n  381 
38r 
38i 
382 
<:wan  383 
'**n  383 
cite  383 
383 
383 

ITOS  384 

F|cr  384 

ntro  384 

rrunr  385 

»«n  386 


The  third  list  illustrates  the  French  school  by  means  of  the 
no'l  Time ;  quotations  from  y*"iD  not  described  as  such  aro 
disregarded. 

FRENCH   SCHOOL. 


25  a  y'TD 
25  a  y*TD 

25  b  y'iD 

25  b  y*iD 

i':  a'n 

II,  40  n'cn 

28  a  y'iD 

29  a  y'TD 

1  I'D  rfoo  ,r|*'T 
29  a  y*TD 
ii  a  y'TD 


81 
81 
81 
mno  83 
83 
87 

91 
9i 
9i 
93 
94 
94 
98 

99 


•'3  'o  ,y'io 

14  b  y'-o 

4  b  y*-c 

1 1  a  y*io 

1 1  a  y'no 

24  b  y*io 

ten  ,-pny 

14  b  y*TD 

's  b'j 

'i  'o  ,y*-c 

'n  'o  ,y*TD 

i i  a  y*TD 


5 

cwa  8 

IttTTO   8 
:TB3   23 
VII  23 

:rre»  23 
rroo  23 
mas  25 
26 

20 
S^ 
50 
50 
50 


1  In  n'c,  153,  ascribed  to  R.  Hai,  but  i*cn,  I,  45,  agrees  with  brt'ac. 

2  In  the  'Irtwr,  ascribed  to  R.  Hai. 

3  The  words  rrmrrci — pi  are  in  the  wrong  place,  they  belong  after  mirro  rroru. 

4  Comp.  above,  p.  151,  n.  i,  and  VOCN,  II,  86.  *  Comp.  o'w,  I,  5. 
'  =  Marx,  Untersuchungen,  &c.                                         '  DC  ? 

8  Comp.  Hurwitz,  ad  loc.;  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  mystical  passage  is 
not  of  Geonic  origin.  •  Comp.  also  O'TO,  260. 


198 


THE    GEONIM 


I  ,iT3yn  ,Ffn 
35  b  J?*TD 
35  a  r'TO 

35  b  y'-o 
'n  ;44a-43c  a'n 


20 b  59  y'rc 

n'o  ,ya 

I,  14-15  Van 

3*y  o'loa 


N*op  'n  a'n 

T  3  mnVNttJ 

I,  99  tt'ro 

n*3  'n  ;  7  a  a'n 

II,  103  TD'TO 

op  'n  ;  29  d  a"n 

n'op  'n  ,a"n 

o'p  'n  ,a'n 

o'p  'n  ,j*n 

'op  'n   ;  29  d  a'n 

26  b  y"-\o 


"«n  231 

D'3wan  104 

JH3  232 

^bn  ,IITS 

n^'xan  104 

17'OTJI  233 

Vp  a'n 

D'3wan  105 

niTTC'   233 

lb*p  D*n 

on'jSffiiDi  107 

nine*  233 

i  i  a  y'TD 

anoy  108 

D'Oisan  234 

30  a  y"~<D 

DlbXD   III 

niobn  242 

+ 

aD':i«an  114 

31  a  »*TD 

Dlto   115 

niDbnoi  244 

31  b  S'-ID 

«31TC3   117 

C'3it«n  247 

32  a  y'no 

'H31TE3   119 

»»Tirp  249 

to'yp  'n   ;  35  c  a'n 

••siin1  139 

wirr  251 

n'o  b'a 

'NTin'  146 

7  ji\zjn3  251 

? 

D'3i«an  179 

'«Vn  255 

a'rp  'n   ;  34  d  a'n 

ni3bn3  194 

8'«ri  255 

i*»p  '^   ;  34  d  J*n 

a'ns  194 

9  'tnin'  261 

3*3  mrttw 

nvVjmia  194 

'lE^D  261 

36  a  3?*no 

ClblD   202 

•jna  pis  268 

n'o  ,b'a 

win'  203 

>nn«  272 

36  b  S'ID 

unas  208 

D':i«an  276 

37  a  r*TD 

'K31TE:  208 

rrobn  278 

I'D 

2mn'»w  211 

1  D'3iNan  278 

37  b  y'lD 

jn:  211 

D'3-wan  279 

TO*p  c"n 

3D'3iNan  212 

'«Tn>  279 

37  a  r'no 

mop  213 

12nos  280 

*  WVP  213 

'>«nra  281 

II,  109  TO*tD 

6»«n  213 

nyi  281 

n''  'o  r'-io 

ntco  214 

TW  281 

43  b  r'lD 

'N31V.C3  228 

D"\D2?  284 

43  b  y'-o 

6onoy  229 

1  Not  Geonic,  conip.  above,  p.  193, 1. 27. 
a  Not  a  verbal  quotation. 

3  The  author  is  R.  Natronai,  comp.  above,  p.  43,  note. 

*  Read  wrros  in  agreement  with  c*\c  1.  c.  and  other  authorities. 

4  Hurwitz  is  mistaken  in  maintaining  that  R.  Nathan  in  his  'Aruk,  s.v.  "?ao, 
ascribes  this  view  to  R.  Zemah. 

6  MS.  S  of  the  Seder  has  likewise  oro  and  not  orn  as  printed  text. 

7  In  o*ioa  :  'Wnsa  ;  comp.  above,  p.  149. 

8  Comp.  bn'aw,  162  ;  if  not  for  this  statement  of  brVnw  I  would  be  inclined  to 
ascribe  this  Responsum  to  R.  Hai  b.  David,  the  contemporary  of  R.  Hilai,  and 
not  to  R.  Hai  b.  Sherira,  who  according  to  Mordecai,  Pesahim,  583,  holds  an 
opposite  view. 

'  In  n'tD  ascribed  to  R.  Matthetias. 
10  Read  pis  jro.  ll  niNDTan  ? 

12  Read  KS'H  ;  in  xc'u?,  V,  100  and  n'c,  102:  nos  without  the  name  of  his 
father  and  accordingly  one  of  the  Geonim. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE 


199 


JITS'1    D  W11E3 

1 1  a  a'n 


n'o  ,ya 

n'o  ,"5*a 

Sab  »*TD 

22  b  ;n  y'ffi 


69  d  a*n 

U>  37  "J12BK 

1'opn'n  ;i26d  j'n 
III,  48 


532 
•mro  556 
nrrtna  587 
»»«n  591 
608 
612 


614 
623 

am  623 
624 
624 
1  c':wn  637 

12  N-riiu  640 
IS'nn  640 
wirr  642 

13  DTO3?  642 

rrobnai  644 
D';i*on  652 
740 
754 
755 
"'NTirr  787 


?36a  y*iD 
537 0-38 b  a'n 

a*:p-*i*op 

50  a  y"-\o 

n'o  'n  ,a*n 

46  b  J?*ID 

a'ain  'n  ,a*n 

n*cp-n*:p 
I,  24  T*ujn 
!,  24-35  n'cn 


a'»p  'n  ;  34  c  a'n 
50  b  y"-o 

42  b  2?*1D 

3'in  a'n 

29  a  3?*1D 

•TVS'  'D  wnBa 


'anbMtrtn  353 
356 


D^:wan  365 
WYC3  374 

382 

387 

''Itto  387 

rriyo  388 
409 


414 
416 

*ni31jna  423 
433 
435 
435 

'TO^D  437 
pns  440 
'onor  445 
»Niirr  458 
DID?  463 
519 


1  The  passage  of  the  Seder  is  quoted  literally  on  p.  202,  and  it  seems  there- 
fore that  the  source  for  the  Responsum  given  on  p.  353  is  another  one 
than  the  Seder. 

*  In  n*ic  ascribed  to  R.  Hai,  but  comp.  above,  p.  195,  n.  8. 
3  In  i"n  anonymously. 

1  Neither  in  j"n  I,  nor  in  j'n  II. 
5  Comp.  G.  S.,  pp.  309-10. 

•  Not  in  the  printed  text  of  the  Seder  nor  in  the  MSS. 

7  Comp.  Hildesheimer,  ad  loc. ;  our  text  reads  differently. 

'  Comp.  Albargeloni,  rrvs'  'D  'c,  177  and  341. 

9  Comp.  n"c,  6,  where  this  Responsum  is  made  use  of. 

10  In  his  code,  comp.  above,  p.  165. 

11  Comp.  G.  S.,  250. 

12  Comp.  Auerbach,  in  his  commentary  on  Vorc«,  II,  82. 
1S  Comp.  above,  p.  151. 

u  Neither  in  a'n  I,  nor  in  a'n  II. 


200  THE    GEONIM 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  GEONIC  RESPONSA. 

Defective  and  incomplete  as  is  the  state  of  the 
Responsa  transmitted  to  us,  so  must  be  our  judgment  of 
their  value.  From  Rabbi  Shashna,  about  680,  until 
the  death  of  Rabbi  Hai  in  1038,  about  eighty  Geonim 
officiated  as  such,  but  barely  more  than  a  third  are  repre- 
sented in  our  Responsa  literature1,  and  yet  it  is  hardly 
open  to  a  doubt  that,  if  not  all,  at  least  a  large  majority 
of  them  must  have  given  written  expression  of  one 
kind  or  another  to  their  views  upon  religious  questions. 
But  even  of  the  Geonim  from  whom  Responsa  have  come 
down  to  us,  we  know  only  one  side  of  their  activity,  and 
of  that  side  not  enough  to  furnish  grounds  for  an  impartial 
and  adequate  judgment  of  their  place  in  Jewish  develop- 
ment. In  the  Responsa  Collections  available  at  the  present 
day  the  Geonim  appear  as  Halakists  exclusively2.  Even 
the  few  Responsa  that  deal  with  Haggadic  material  touch 
upon  it  merely  in  the  course  of  explanations  of  Talmudic 
passages.  Thus  what  we  know  of  the  Geonim  in  relation 
to  the  Haggadah  is  not  their  independent  view,  but  only 
their  activity  as  commentators.  And  yet  it  was  precisely 
in  the  domain  of  the  Haggadah,  in  other  words,  in  theology, 
religious  philosophy,  and  related  subjects,  that  the  Geonim 
made  no  attempt  to  harmonise  their  views  with  those  of 
the  Talmud;  their  purpose  was  simply  to  explain  the 
Talmud  regardless  of  their  own  predilections.  "Know 
that  we  are  not,  like  some  others,  in  the  habit  of  explaining 
any  matter  apologetically,  in  contradiction  to  the  real 


1  Almost  all  are  on  record  in  Miiller ;  the  only  ones  to  be  added  are 
the  two  Geonim  by  the  name  of  Kimoi,  whose  Responsa  are  found  in  an 
anonymous  Halakic  treatise  published  in  J.  Q.  R.,  IX,   681-761  (comp. 
above,  p.  104,  n.  i),  and  Rabbi  Hezekiahben  Samuel,  who,  to  be  sure,  was 
not  actually  a  Gaon ;  comp.  above,  p.  7,  n.  i. 

2  p*a,  15,  is  surely  not  a  Responsum,  and  its  Geonic  origin  is  very 
doubtful. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  2OI 

meaning  of  him  from  whom  it  proceeds.  We  will  there- 
fore expound  to  thee  the  opinion  of  the  Tanna,  his  real 
meaning  and  his  true  purpose,  without  pledging  ourselves 
for  the  correctness  of  the  assertion  made  by  him."  These 
words  of  Rabbi  Hai l,  who,  in  opposition  to  Rabbi  Saadia 
and  the  philosophising  school  that  followed  him  as  its 
head,  insisted  upon  an  unbiassed  explanation  of  the  views 
of  earlier  teachers,  characterise  not  only  his  own  intel- 
lectual attitude,  but  also  the  spirit  prevailing  in  the 
Academies  so  long  as  they  remained  untouched  by  alien 
influences.  At  the  same  time,  his  words  make  apparent 
how  difficult  it  is  to  reach  a  knowledge  of  what  the  actual 
views  of  the  Geonim  themselves  were.  And  yet,  if  any 
doubt  had  been  entertained  as  to  the  theological  trend  of 
the  discussions  in  some  of  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim, 
it  would  have  been  dispelled  by  the  list  of  Responsa  printed 
in  riD7K>  J"6np,  69-70,  containing  twenty-eight  items,  almost 
all  of  a  theological  nature2.  In  that  batch  there  were 
Responsa  on  the  translation  of  Elijah  and  of  Enoch,  on 
Shabuot  as  the  Feast  of  Revelation,  on  the  suffering  Messiah 
of  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  on  the  death  of  the 
Messiah  referred  to  in  Zechariah  xii.  16,  and  on  many  other 
interesting  points,  not  one  of  which  has  been  preserved 
in  the  Responsa  literature  now  known  to  us.  A  com- 
parison of  Responsa  lists  in  nobc>  r6np  with  our  available 
Responsa  Collections,  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the 
guiding  principle  adopted  for  the  latter.  It  was  plainly 
intended  that  they  should  consist  of  Halakic  and  Talmudic 
material  exclusively.  This  is  the  only  possible  explanation 

1  "j*:,  99.   The  expression  men1)  is  probably  an  imitation  of  the  Talmudic 
x-nnx  ra  Sy  men1?  in  Git  tin,  17  a  ;  comp.  'Aruk,  s.  v.  vnn«  ra  and  F]n. 

2  It  will  not  do,  of  course,  to  assign  all  these  Responsa  to  the  end  of 
the  Gaonate  and  ascribe  them  to  Rabbi  Hai.     In  fact,  the  list  is  headed 
D'yihO1?.     It  is  noteworthy  that  the  first  list,  a'a-'i,  deals  with  difficult 
chronological   problems  in   the   Holy  Scriptures,  some  of  them  being 
the  data  used  by  Hiwi  Albalki  as  weapons  against  the  authenticity 
of  the  Scriptures.    Dr.  Poznanski  in  his  essay  on  Hiwi,  Jnn,  VII,  112-37, 
makes  no  mention  thereof. 


202  THE    GEONIM 

for  the  phenomenon  that  most  of  the  Responsa  of  Halakic 
bearing  recorded  in  the  lists  just  referred  to  have  been 
preserved  in  our  Collections1,  while  those  of  Haggadic 
content  have  disappeared  wholly  and  entirely. 

Limited  thus  to  pure  Halakah,  the  Responsa  nevertheless 
are  of  very  considerable  value.  In  the  first  place,  they 
called  forth  a  new  species  of  literature,  which  in  a  measure 
shares  with  the  Talmud  the  distinction  of  being  the  only 
department  that  can  be  described  as  peculiarly  Jewish. 
Correspondence  between  scholars  existed  before  Geonic 
times,  nor  was  it  an  activity  confined  to  Jews.  But  Re- 
sponsa are  something  more,  at  all  events  something  other 
than  correspondence  between  scholars.  The  Geonim  were 
not  requested  to  give  their  views  upon  vexed  religious 
questions  merely  on  account  of  their  scholarship  and 
attainments,  but  because  they  were  at  the  same  time,  in 
virtue  of  their  high  office,  the  representatives  of  legal 
authority.  It  is  true  that  in  an  overwhelming  number  of 
cases  the  Geonim  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  Talmud. 
The  Tannaim  and  Amoraim  had  a  similar  relation  to  the 
Bible  as  the  only  source  of  law.  Yet  it  would  be 
ridiculous  to  say  that  the  teachers  of  the  Talmud  did  no 
more  than  explain  the  Biblical  law ;  their  activity 
was  equally  fruitful  in  elaborating  the  fundamental 
law.  Halevy  holds  that,  barring  two  ordinances,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  whole  of  Geonic  literature  not  taken 
from  the  Talmud.  The  same  logical  process  would  properly 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  with  the  exception  of  the  so- 
called  "seven  commands  of  the  scholars,"  pl*n  JYIVD  jae>, 
the  Talmudic  time  produced  nothing  but  what  is  prescribed 
in  the  Pentateuch.  The  Tannaim  and  Amoraim  felt  justi- 
fied in  considering  their  "  ordinances  and  fences  "  as  devised 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Geonim  were 

1  Of  the  fourteen  Responsa  in  the  list,  p.  72,  the  following  can  be 
traced  :  'N  in  b"a,  55  ;  'a  in  n'cn,  II,  46  ;  'T  in  n*:,  197  ;  'n  in  IITQT,  I,  25  b  ; 
'i  in  nancn  nynj  of  Rabbi  Meir  of  Rothenburg,  ed.  Bloch,  177  ;  'n  in  y'tr, 
43  b,  i ;  N*>  in  E*n,  187;  i*'  in  b*a,  61. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  203 

persuaded  of  their  implicit  adhesion  to  the  Talmud  in  all 
their  decisions.  This  view  taken  by  the  Talmudists  and 
the  Geonim  of  their  own  activity  may  be  conceded  to  be 
correct  theoretically,  but  we  are  not  thereby  hindered 
from  recognising  it  as  a  fact  that  Biblical  law  is  not 
identical  with  Talmudic  law,  nor  the  latter  with  Geonic 
law.  Every  age  has  its  problems,  and  though  the  law 
remained  unchanged  for  all  times  among  the  Jews,  the 
laws  underwent  modification  along  with  the  times.  Let 
us  consider  only  the  varied  development  of  Divine  worship 
in  the  Geonic  time.  Built  up  on  principles  laid  down  in 
the  Talmud,  it  yet  is  totally  different  in  form  from  the 
service  customary  during  the  Talmudic  time.  Or,  to  take 
another  illustration,  in  ?"&>  6?  b,  60,  we  have  the  Geonic 
decision  that  a  husband  may  marry  a  second  wife  only 
with  the  consent  of  the  first.  The  aim  of  the  Talmudists, 
to  entrench  and  increase  the  rights  of  women,  is  evident 
in  a  large  number  of  their  enactments,  and  the  Gaon  who 
gave  the  above  decision  felt  himself  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Tannaim  and  Amoraim,  though  in  this  given 
concrete  instance  he  was  striking  out  into  his  own  new 
path  *.  And  as  the  rights  of  women  were  developed  during 
the  Geonic  period,  so  also  were  the  rights  of  slaves.  Thus 
we  have  a  number  of  Geonic  Responsa  that  grant  liberty 
to  a  slave  whose  master  has  had  intercourse  with  her.  The 
reasons  adduced  against  the  validity  of  this  Geonic  decision 
on  the  basis  of  the  Talmud  cannot  be  set  aside  lightly2. 
No  doubt,  the  Geonim  were  aware  of  their  opposition  to 
the  statements  of  the  Talmud  taken  literally.  They  felt 
secure  in  the  other  consciousness  that  they  were  acting 
in  its  spirit.  Rab  Amram's  decision3,  that  it  is  not  per- 
mitted to  take  usury  from  a  non-Jew,  cannot  be  authenti- 
cated by  resort  to  a  Talmudic  expression.  If,  nevertheless, 
Rab  Amram  forbade  it  strictly,  in  any  circumstances,  he 

1  Yebamot,  64  a,  bottom,  is  another  case  ;  comp.  toc'n  on  the  passage. 
z  Comp.  the  Responsa  in  Saadyana,  -76-8,  and  i*u»,  I,  164-5. 
3  y'tr,  40  a,  20. 


204  THE 

thereby  proved  the  potentialities  for  development  latent 
in  the  Rabbinic  law. 

These  examples,  which  might  readily  be  multiplied 
twentyfold  in  every  department  of  the  Rabbinic  law,  will 
probably  suffice  to  give  an  indication  of  the  real  value 
of  the  Geonic  Responsa.  Viewed  thus,  the  Responsa  are 
much  more  important  than  the  codifications  by  the  Geonim. 
In  the  latter,  it  is  the  Talmud  that  is  given  the  opportunity 
to  speak ;  in  the  Responsa  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  Geonic  times. 
For  this  reason,  the  Responsum  became  an  example  and 
a  model  for  later  generations.  Their  leaders  and  teachers 
used  it  as  a  means  for  making  the  Rabbinic  law  effective 
according  to  the  changing  circumstances  of  the  times.  The 
Responsa  literature,  created  by  the  Geonim,  developed, 
as  to  quantity  and  quality,  into  one  of  the  most  important 
branches  of  Rabbinic  activity. 

The  chief  distinction  of  the  Geonic  Responsa,  in  com- 
parison with  later  Responsa,  is  that  they  became  of 
fundamental  importance  for  other  departments  of  Rab- 
binical literature.  The  older  commentaries  on  the  Talmud, 
those  of  the  North  African  school,  for  instance,  are  scarcely 
conceivable  without  the  Responsa  of  the  Geonim l.  It  may 
be  said  confidently  that  Rabbi  Hananel's  commentary  is  an 
outcome  of  the  Responsa  by  Rabbi  Hai  and  Rabbi  Sherira. 
They  not  only  served  him  as  a  formal  model  for  the 
explanation  of  the  Talmud,  but  they  contain  such  wealth 
of  material  for  this  very  purpose  that  to  this  day  they  may 
be  resorted  to  with  great  profit  to  the  student.  And  as  for 
Rabbi  Nathan  ben  Yehiel,  the  great  lexicographer,  for  him 
and  his  investigations,  especially  those  into  Aramaic  word- 
structure,  the  Responsa  were  a  veritable  treasure -trove. 
His  'Aruk  is  in  large  part  a  collection  of  Geonic  glosses  on 
the  Talmud.  Let  the  interested  student  compare  the  frag- 

1  There  is  no  telling  to  what  extent  Rashi  made  use  of  the  Geonic 
writings.  The  different  readings  he  offers  often  go  back  to  differences  of 
opinion  among  the  Geonim  ;  comp.,  for  instance,  Bosh  ha-Shanah,  28  a 
with  TO'TD,  I,  36. 


THE    HALAKIC    LITERATURE  205 

ment  published  in  6.S.,  pp.  318-25,  containing  linguistic 
explanations  bearing  on  the  treatise  Shabbat,  with  the 
corresponding  headings  in  the  'Aruk,  and  he  cannot  but 
be  convinced  of  Rabbi  Nathan's  dependence  upon  the 
Geonim.  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  David,  of  Posquieres, 
showed  keen  insight  in  judging  of  the  value  of  Geonic 
contributions  to  Rabbinic  literature.  He  said,  "  At  the 
present  time  we  may  not  explain  a  Talmud  passage  other 
than  the  Geonim,  unless  we  have  irrefutable  evidence 
against  their  conception  of  it — which  is  never  the  case." 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS   OF  TITLES 
OF  BOOKS 

I'IN  or  j*N=sm  TIM,  by  R.  Isaac  of  Vienna. 

n"«  or  n*iN  =  D"n  nimx,  by  R.  Aaron  of  Lunel. 

Vi3ttJN,  by  R.  Abraham  b.  Isaac  of  Narbonne. 

a*a  =  rmano  D'owan  nuiirn;  the  second  volume  of  this  book. 

n*a  =  Responsen  der  Geonim,  by  A.  Harkavy. 

b*a=-o*->n  p»b  ,a'ai«an  rrowi. 

oi'oa—  rroVn    Vo  ,-«bV>n  ;aiym  mw  »awa  niawn. 


a*n=ml>'na  mabn  ed.  Venice;  ed.  Hildesheimer  is  quoted  as  'n  a*r». 

mpico  rvo^n. 
m  ,mi3a  mon. 


nnsn. 


,  by  R.  Isaac  b.  Abbamari,  ed.  Lemberg,  1860. 
c,  by  Rashi,  ed.  Constantinople,  1802. 
rrchv  nbnp,  Geonic  collection,  ed.Wertheimer,  Jerusalem,  1900. 
aw,  ed.  Buber. 


U3*\i}  =  nrras?  'nyc,  by  R.  Isaac  Ibn  Gajat. 

\cn  a:*xc  n 
nan  .  .  .  oiNn  mm. 
an  ma 
jrrnn 


Coronel  =  Nb'in  ]3^n  bonip  »*y  C':iNa 

6.  S.  =  GenizaJi  Studies  ;  the  second  volume  of  this  book. 

Graetz  =  Geschichte  der  Juden,  vol.  V,  third  edition. 

Halevy  =  Dorot  ha-Rishonim,  III. 

Harkavy.     See  n'a. 

'Ittur.     See  110?. 

J.  Q.  R.  =  Jewish  Quarterly  Review. 

Mafteah  —  Einleitung  in  die  Responsen  der  Geonen,  by  Dr.  J.  Miiller. 

Pardes.     See  DinD. 

R.  E.  J.  =  Rei-ue  des  Etudes  Juives. 

Sherira  =  Letter  by  R.  Sherira,  ed.  Neubauer. 

Z.  H.  B.  =  Zeitschriftfur  hebrdische  Bibliographie. 


ADDITIONS 

P.  4,  n.  i  end.  The  Geonic  Responsum  in  i>n*2B>,  38  and 
E.  Sherira,  33,  22  ;  34,  6  refer  to  the  same  persecution  during  the 
reign  of  "1131P,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  either  fcrtf  in 
^rfyff  is  corrupted  from  ^Dim  or  niD'QB'  from  n»B>3.  Friedmann, 
in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  'l  Ifl'^N  XD,  101—2,  has  drawn 
unwarranted  conclusions  from  this  corrupted  passage. — P.  8,  n.  r, 
1.  8.  Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact,  that  "  the  Ten  of  the 
first  row"  have  their  parallel  in  the  -rrparroi  Sena  of  the  old 
Palestinian  councils.  Comp.  Schurer,  Geschichte  d.  jud.  Volkes,  II, 
253,  fourth  edition. — P.  10, 1. 8  read  Kimoi. — P.  1 2, 1.  12  from  below. 
Nahmanides,  NiVn,  28d,  quotes  a  Geonic  Responsum  where  the 
triad  (?)  pK31  PJ^X  D3n  occurs. — P.  12,  1.  u  from  below.  Comp. 
Midrash  STiemud,  XX,  106,  ed.  Berber:  N^N  m"On»  m$>n  pKB> 
3*3.  Does  it  refer  to  the  triad  of  the  presidency  of  the  Sanhedrin  ? 
Yerushdlmi,  Sanhedrin,  II,  20  c  reads  nC^tJt3  PIDS. — P.  13,  1.  13 
(note).  Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  DSN  '"1,  the 
successor  to  R.  Judah  ha-Nassi,  was  his  secretary,  comp.  Genesis 
E.  LXXV. — P.  25, 1. 14.  Comp.  -|t5>Tl  'D,  section  pp»,  773  ed.  Venice, 
where  f*"iN=~vy. — P.  25,  n.  i  end.  Comp.  Midrash  ha-Gadol,  190, 
niTO  i?y  ''JT'Dyn,  and  the  same  in  Gaster,  nWJ?D,  4  ;  the  Aramaic 
equivalent  is:  7JJ  Dp;  comp.  Hullin,  97  b. — P.  29,  1. 12.  R.  Sherira 
speaks  ofE.Elhanan  as  one  who  was:  nniBVi  Eni'B'D  nhnj  nnt^3;  "the 
three  rows  "  are  referred  to  in  Mishnah,  Sanhedrin,  IV,  4,  and  the 
Midrash  ha-Gadol,  741  :  p3CW  D'COPl  n-'O^n  *?V  nmt^  vhw  l^K 
ny  i>33  nn^B^. — P.  32,  n.  3.  But  more  likely  B>N")n  is  to  be  read, 
the  title  of  the  head  of  the  Kairwan  academy. — P.  40,  n.  2.  The 
distance  between  Bagdad  and  Sura  as  given  by  Funk  in  the  map 
attached  io  his  Juden  in  Babylonien,  II,  is  by  far  too  great. — 
P.  51,  1.  9  (note)  read  Bi*O2,  32,  86. — P.  53,  1.  6  from  below.  In 
the  Egyptian  academies  the  title  JH  JV3,  shortened  from  JV3  3N 
p*l,  was  used  (Saadyana,  81),  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  |1N3 
as  title  of  the  head  of  the  Suran  academy  is  shortened  from 
}1N3  nTB»  B«n.  The  description  of  the  academy  as  3pN'  pN3 


208  ADDITIONS 

reminds  one  of  the  Aramaic  expression  Nfl  I|*V1K*T  Nip"1  used  by 
R.  Ashi,  Berakot,  I7b,  in  speaking  of  the  grandeur  of  the  Suran 
academy,  and  there  is  no  need  to  look  for  Latin  or  Persian  models 
for  the  }1NJ  as  Kohut  (Aruch  Completum,  s.v.)  and  Sachs  (Beitrage, 
II,  83)  do.  Comp.  also  Abul  K.  Nathan,  25,  ed.  Schechter:  pNJ 
JJB^KI  lit^N  HT  p-pn. — P.  53,  1.  12  from  below.  Comp.  W*W,  I, 
63:  KTID1  KjmfU,  where  Njmm  =  KnnaDIB  and  J.Q.R.,  VI, 
222. — P.  58,  1.  8  (note).  Comp.  M.  Coen  ^K^DT,  297,  and  Jacob 
Schorr  D^oan  Wy  "VND ,  2  7  b— 2  8  b,  concerning  the  use  of  the  Talmudic 
expression  .TOp  3TV. — P.  71,  1.  20.  Comp.  HBt3  D^Ha,  where 
Enoch  introduces  himself  to  Moses  as  "pUN  *3X. — P.  71,  n.  2. 
Comp.  Targum,  Isaiah  xi.  i,  and  Midrash  Tehillim,  XVIII,  157, 
where  p  p  =  descendant. — P.  77,  n.  2  end.  The  scholars  of 
Kairwan  (?)  probably  had  in  their  mind  the  passage  of  Yerushalmi, 
Maaserot,  IV,  51  b:  m:?  3"iyb  =  n»n  'DHIon,  which  statement 
implies  that  "IB>J?K&  njop  TOW  pDD,  else  the  Talmud  would  have 
said  TOBTI  pSD3  instead  of  rat?  3"iy.  Halevy  I.e.  and  Eatner 
DvtJTVI  JVX  rnnK,  Pesahim,  124,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
scholars  of  Kairwan  refer  to  a  passage  not  found  in  our  text  of 
the  Yerushalmi. — P.  87,  1.  8.  Comp.  however  NTTIN  in  G.  S., 
390. — P.  88,  n.  5.  Comp.  I^TI  'D,  ed.  Eosenthal,  80 :  ""NHS  X11 
imp  D^wab  {TNT  nTi:? ;  for  -»mB>  is  to  be  read  PTQ5?. — P.  93, 
n.  i.  Lerner,  Jahrbuch  d.jud.  lit.  Gesellschaft,  I,  210  et  seq.,  tries 
in  vain  to  prove  the  dependence  of  the  Yelamdenu  on  the  Sheeltot. — 
P.  93,  n.  2.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  <piD 
N**l  was  well  acquainted  with  the  Babli,  but  this  does  not  imply 
that  he  was  a  Babylonian.  The  Jewish  custom  spoken  of  in 
chap,  xvi  is  a  Palestinian  and  not  a  Babylonian  one,  as  can  be 
seen  from  D^nJD  v\\?n,  37,  ed.  Miiller.  The  use  of  }Tn  in  the  meaning 
of  "112V  nvfc?  in  this  Midrash  is  in  all  probability  of  Palestinian 
origin ;  the  N^IDII  2i"IJO,  an  offset  of  the  Palestinian  aH3D  is  the 
only  one  to  use  X^tn  in  the  meaning  of  Qiai'3. — P.  94,  1.  18. 
Miiller  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  DH31D  'DD,  21,  main- 
tains that  the  author  of  'D  rDD  made  use  of  the  Sheeltot,  but  I 
am  not  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  this  view.  The  Sheeltot 
quotations  in  one  version  of  the  Tanhuma  are  later  additions. — 
P.  94,  n.  3.  Sheelta,  LXVI  on  JVJyn  properly  belongs  to  the 
pericope  NE>n,  a  part  of  which  is  read  on  fastdays,  and  not  to 
^Hp*1!  as  the  editions  have  it;  ^n"3B>,  260,  quotes  this  Sheelta 


ADDITIONS  209 

properly  as  ne>»  ^nTl  Nn^NS?. — P.  96,  n.  i,  1.  8.  Comp.  'D 
1B*n,  98  and  210. — P.  1 08,  n.  i.  The  author  of  the  hrfyff  quotes 
a  number  of  passages  from  the  3'n  which  are  not  found  in  our 
versions,  comp.  the  list  of  quotations  given  below,  pp.  191—7. — 
P.  112, 1.  2  (note).  As  late  as  the  time  of  Maimonides  the  Rab- 
banites  had  to  fight  this  Karaitic  heresy,  comp.  his  Responsa, 
n.  149;  comp.  also  'n  liT^K  'D,  XVI,  75,  ed.  Friedmann.— 
P.  122,  1.  ii  (note).  It  is  even  doubtful  whether  R.  Natronai 
while  speaking  of  the  Haggadic  D*BVB  thought  of  Kalir ;  the  pre- 
Kaliric  Payyetanim,  for  instance,  Yose  benYose  made  use  of  the 
Haggadah  for  liturgical  purposes. — P.  133,  n.  i.  Comp.  Wisdom, 
xvi.  28  :  "  That  it  might  be  known  that  we  must  rise  before  the 
sun  to  give  Thee  thanks,  and  must  plead  with  Thee  (="]^N  ^203) 
at  the  dawning  of  the  light." — P.  137,  1.  5  from  below.  Del. 
the  three  Hebrew  words. — P.  142,  n.  i.  The  objection  of  the 
Babylonians  to  Kol-Nidre  and  DH13  man  in  general  is  partly 
due  to  the  fact  that  there  were  no  DTIO1D  in  Babylonia,  while 
the  Palestinians  continued  to  confer  the  ordination. — P.  145,  1.  16. 

Comp.  -IBTI  'D,  82 :  an  'TS  ia  wv  nnetr  'T  anan  urns?  -nrnca 
moy  'n  TIDO  D'-nn.— P.  145,  n.  2.    In  IPVI  'D,  82,  top,  the 

words  JWVN  y""~\  "V1D31  belong  to  the  preceding  sentence,  and  are  to 
be  translated :  "  and  the  Seder  of  R.  Amram  contains  it,"  namely 
the  benediction  over  the  kindling  of  lights.  A  quotation  from  the 
Seder  not  found  in  our  texts  is  given  in  1B"n  'D,  97. — P.  149,  n.  i. 
Comp.  ^Tfyp,  42  with  3*n,  48  and  To,  251  with  eVca,  72.  The 
differences  in  the  names  go  back  to  a  different  reading  of  the 
abbreviation  3""). — P.  152,  1.  21.  A  reference  to  this  part  of  the 
Seder  is  found  in  -|B*n  'D,  98. — P.  167,  n.  The  Seder  of  R.  Saadia 
is  referred  to  in  -|B>V1  'D,  82.— P.  179,  1.  20  (note).  The  j*Bn  'D 
is  quoted  in  KH  n3J?Q,  section  niDB'  towards  the  end. — P.  181, 
n.  2.  Comp.  Sachs,  pan  7D,  9-14. — P.  182,  n.  3.  Comp.  however 
the  words  of  R.  Hai  in  f&,  6 ;  94  d. — P.  191  (22).  Muller,  Mafteah, 
2 1  o  refers  to  Pardes  as  the  source  for  this  Responsum  of  R.  Hai, 
but  it  is  not  found  there. — P.  193  (67).  Comp.  Hildesheimer,  ad 
loc. — P.  193  (89).  Comp.  no^t?  n^np,  introduction,  15  et  seq. — 
P.  193  (101).  In  the  Seder  ascribed  to  Sar  Shalom. — P.  193  (115). 
Our  texts  of  3*1  read  differently. — P.  195  (258  :  «NH).  The  view 
ascribed  to  the  Gaon  (  =  Hai)  in  D'JH  D'Dn  is  just  the  opposite 
of  that  ascribed  to  R.  Hai  by  the  author  of  ^Y'3B'. — P.  197  (399  : 
I  P 


210  ADDITIONS 


Comp.  Mordecai,  Huttin,  420,  j'DD,  Commandement,  63 
and  fix,  I,  1  1  4  b,  who  had  the  same  text  of  the  J*n  as  ^n*3K>  ; 
Hildesheimer's  remark  to  j'n,  527,  n.  59,  is  to  be  corrected  ac- 
cordingly. —  P.  205,  1.  5.  This  remark  of  RABeD  is  found  in 
his  MS.  niJtJTl  against  R.  Zerechiah  Gerondi  in  the  Sulzberger 
Collection  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


ARY 


below. 


if  ^/ea- 
rn isti 


v.l 


